Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "A handbook of freethought : containing in condensed and systematized form a vast amount of evidence against the superstitious doctrines of Christianity"

See other formats


3 3433 07954887 5 


-7Mo. 30 Extra. TRUTH SKKKEU 1.1 lilt AKY. ITlay, 1S»3. 




Containing in Condensed and Systematized Form a Vast Amount of 
Evidence Against the Superstitious Doc- 
trines of Christianity. 

Seleoted by W, S. BBLrl^. 

New York: 


28 Lafayette PiiACE. 

.ilONTHI^Y, (Price, 50 cents.) «3 PER YEAR. 

finttred at the Post Oifice in New Yoi-k, March 4, '91, as second-class nuit»er. 

/? ■" 

I . 


Containing in Condensed and Systematized Form a Vast Amount of 
Evidence Against the Superstitious Doc- 
trines of Christianity. 

Selected by W. S. BBLLr^ 


New York: 

28 Lafayette Place. 

17 73 

; i< 


I have aimed in preparing this work to put into com- 
pact and orderly form a large amount of irrefragable 
evidence the superstitions of the church. I have 
often felt the need of such a work for my own use. The 
matter herewith presented has been culled from some of 
the ablest writers living and dead. As a book of refer- 
ence I hope it may be a valuable aid to all investigators 
and truthseekers. Its running head lines, chapter heads, 

subheads, and classified subjects make it a ^'handbook." 
San Francisco. 
January 10, 1890. 



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
(Gen. 1: 1.) 

No sooner do we read this sentence than we find our 
minds full of perplexing questions. Quite naturally we ask 
in the "beginning" of what? It could not mean in the 
beginning of God, for it is supposed that he had no begin- 
ning; it could not mean the beginning of eternity, as that is 
without commencement or end, and it could not have been 
in the beginning of matter as it is eternal. If then matter 
is eternal, the story about the creation of the heaven and 
the earth is nothing more than a myth— a childish story 
that has come down to us from the dark ages of the remote 

The indestructibility of matter is the corner-stone of 
modern philosophy, and the indestructibility of matter 
implies its eternal existence, that is, it never was created 
and it never will cease to exist. Theologians have taught 
for centuries that God created matter out of nothing. En- 
lightened people have to smile when they hear these stories 
repeated. Some theologians who have discovered the folly 
of such empty traditions have tried to reconstruct them by 
means of new interpretations. The Eev. De Witt Talmage, 
)f Brooklyn, has discovered that God created matter out of 
I piece of omnipotence. This discovery is important, and 
may lead to grand results; still there are some people who 
doggedly refuse to accept this invention, and maintain that 
omnipotence is nothing more than an attribute, and that 


one could with as much propriety speak of God's creating 
matter out of omniscience, or omnipresence. 

There are others who do not claim that matter was 
made out of nothing, but that it was in a chaotic state, and 
that at a certain time (before time was), God formed it into 
the universe in six days of creation. 

But this explanation does not help us out of our diffi- 
culties. For if God did not create matter out of nothing 
then it is eternal, and there could be no such thing as crea- 
tion, or Creator. There is nothing in this old story at all, 
if it proves on examination that the "Creator" did not 
create matter; for in that case matter is co-eternal with 
God, and like him, is uncaused. When this old definition of 
creation fails the theological superstructure built upon it 
totters and falls to the ground. For if the Creator did not 
originate the universe from nothing, then matter is eternal, 
and God is not omnipotent, is not infinite, is not God. Thus 
we see that we have no reason whatever to think that there 
ever was a beginning to matter, or that creation of matter 
is at all thinkable. The words "beginning" and "creation," 
as thus used are without meaning. 

It is a marvel how long the mind of man has been sub- 
ject to this childish fable. Surely the wise men of the different 
ages who heard it perceived its unreasonableness. But the 
wise men were few and the unwise were manj'', and the super- 
structure built over their heads in the form of theocracies 
and theologies, laid upon the foundations of this myth were 
too formidable to admit of free thought. The prophets must 
prophesy according to the traditions of the fathers. New 
interpretations were never welcome in this world. A radical 
idea is always a source of pain to the superficial or bigoted 
mind. And above all heresy was the worst of all things, 
and everything new was heresy. And because human reason 
was all the time making discoveries which revealed better 
things than had been known, and because reason exposed 
the; weakness and falsity of traditions and superstitions, 
therefore reason itself was condemned and put under ban 


and was called "carnal reason," and in order to overcome 
it, faith, blind belief, was set up as the greatest of all human 
virtues. And so strong Tf^s reason in its persistent attempts 
to get at the truth, it became necessary to preach faith all 
the time and to make salvation in another world depend 
upon it. And, as if this was not enough, he was constantly 
reminded that the sentence, " believe or be damned " did not 
relate wholly to another world Damnation often began in 
this world. The persecutions, inquisitions, crusades, St. 
Bartholomew massacres all show how hard it is with those 
who have faith to have kindness of heart. 

"And God said let there be light and there was light." 
But how do v/e know he said so? Who was the reporter at 
that early date? In fact even if it were true, how could any 
one have ever found it out ? And if any one had found it 
how could we know it ? The same question might be asked 
in reference to creation. Who discovered the fact? How 
could we know that some one had learned it even if it were 

" And God saw the light that it was good." From this 
expression, we should infer that he did not know beforehand 
whether the light he was about experimentally to originate 
would be a good thing or not ; but after having spoken it 
into existence and contemplating it for a while, he pro- 
nounced it good. The approval is spoken of it much 
after the manner of men. For instance we see a painter after 
having put the finishing touches on his picture step back 
and with satisfaction look at it, and say, " it is the greatest 
effort of my life." 

''And God divided the light from the darkness." The 
originator of this story had not the slightest idea of the 
nature of light. He supposed it to be a substance that 
could be separated from darkness, which he also imagined 
a substance, as white beans may be separated from black 

In his imagination he probably saw God throwing fjieces and 
chunks of darkness on one side and rays and beams of light on the 


other. It is hard for a man who has been born but once to under- 
stand these things. ( "Mistakes of Moses," Ingersoll.) 

"And God called the light day, and the darkness he called 
night; and the evening and the morning were the first day." 

Bible expounders have found it difficult to reconcile the 
word "day" with the teachings of geology. According to 
common chronology the creation of this universe out of 
nothing took place four thousand and four years before the 
birth of Christ, which would make the universe about six 
thousand years old. The testimony of geology is that the 
formation of this earth as it now is, must have a record of 
millions of years. And astronomy demonstrates that there 
are stars so far from this earth that it would take an indefi- 
nitely long time for the light from them to reach this earth. 

Here then are two witnesses against this story which 
makes the earth about six thousand years old. These wit- 
nesses cannot be impeached. 

What shall be done with the record? Oh, put a new 
interpretation upon it. "A person who is not a critic," says 
Huxley, "and is not a Hebrew scholar, can only stand up 
and admire the marvelous flexibility of the language which 
admits of such adverse interpretations." 

The great expounders who explain the inexplicable things 
assure us that the six days of creation spoken of in the book 
of Genesis do mean literal days of twenty-four hours, but 
that the word "day" is here used to mean an indefinite 
period, "a great while." But there are so many, and such 
great difficulties in the way of our accepting this explana- 
tion that we are forced to reject it. 

In the first place the record says "days," and says 
nothing in connection with the word that would lead us to 
think the writer meant anjrthing by the word more than it 
usually signifies ; while on the other hand all the uses of the 
word seem to imply that a day in every instance where the 
the word is used, means a period of twenty-four hours. 

Hugh Miller, and an eminent geologist, attempted to 
reconcile Genesis with geology, and after a laborous effo:'t 


to achieve this end cpmmitt^d suicide. He attempted an 
impossible task. 

There is not the slightest grounds for supposing the 
writer of Genesis to mean by the word "day" anything 
more than we mean by the same word. The language, " the 
evening and the morning were the first day," can admit of 
but one interpretation, and that, is the duration of twenty- 
four hours. We shall find that the writer uses the word 
"day" where, by no possible flexibility of interpretation, 
can the word mean anything other than this, and gives no 
hint that he means anything different in the use of the word 
in the latter case from its signification in its previous use. 

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had 
made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which 
he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, 
because that in it he had rested from all his work." 

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and 
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord 
blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." 

"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for 
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and on the seventh 
day he rested and was refreshed." 

And still another instance may be given to show that 
the word "day" has no double meaning : "And Grod made 
two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser 
to rule the night." The word "' day " obviously means what 
we mean by it when we use it in connection with night. 

These proofs settle the question of the meaning of the 
word "day." It means in Genesis just what it means when 
we use it. The account given of creation in speaking of 
"days" meant literally twenty-four hours; and geology^ 
and astronomy prove such statements to be childish and 
foohsh. If we should admit that the word "day" in this, 
narrative meant millions of years, then the first Sabbath 
upon which the Lord rested and was refreshed also meant 
millions of years. If this be so then it is safe to infer that 
he is still resting. This may in some degree account for the 


fact that the ministers are trying to run the world in his 
name. For if God exerts his power over the world to guide 
and control it according to his own sovereign will it is 
nothing less than high handed presumption if not rebellous 
usurpation on the part of the clergy to attempt to take 
the management out of his hands. 

In the second chapter of Genesis, Adam is said to have 
been made before the animals were created. After Adam 
had given names to all the animals as they passed before 
him in grand review, there was no helpmeet found among 
them for him, and as an afterthought God formed a woman 
for him out of a rib. But here was a very long period be- 
tween the creation of Adam and Eve. According to the 
first chapter of Genesis Adam and Eve were created at the 
same time, and before the creation of the animal kingdom, 
but in the second chapter man was the first creature made 
and woman the last. This would make Adam millions of 
years older than Eve, if the word "day" means millions 
of years in the first chapter of Genesis. 

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the 
waters, and let it divide the waters. And God made the firmament 
and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the 
waters which were above the finnament; and it was so. And God 
called the firmament heaven." 

According to this writer's ideas heaven and earth were 
two flat spheres, upon each of which were vast quantities of 
water. The firmament in which were set the sun, moon, and 
stars was in some way supported at a short distance above 
the earth. 

The Hebrew term rakia, so translated, is generally regarded as 
expressive of simple expansion, and is so rendered in the margin 
of the A. V. (authorized version). (Gen. 1: G.) The root means 
to expand by beating whether by the hand, the foot, or any other 
instrument. It is especially used of beating out metals into thin 
lilates. (Ex.30: 3, and Num. 10: 39.) The sense of solidity is 
combined with the ideas of expansion and tenuity in the term. 
The Bame idea of soUdity runs through all the refereucea to the 


rakia. In Exodus 24: 10, it is represented as a solid floor. So 
again in Ezekiel 1 : 22-26, the "firmament" is the floor on which 
the throne of the Most High is placed. Further, the oflice of the 
rakia, in the economy of fKo world demanded strength and sub- 
stance. It was to serve as a division between the waters above 
and the waters below. (Gen. 1:7.) In keeping with this view the 
rakia was provided \yith. "windows" (Gen. 7: 11, Isa. 24: 18, 
Mai. 3: 10), and "doors" (Ps. 78: 23) through which the rain 
and the snow might descend. A secondary purpose whicli the 
rakia served was to support the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, and 
stars (Gen. 1: 14), in which they were fixed as nails, and from 
which consequently, they might be said to drop off. (Isa. 14: 
12-34, Mat. 24: 29.) In all these particulars we recognize the 
same view as was entertained by the Greeks, and to a certain ex- 
tent by the Latins. If it be objected to the Mosaic account that 
the view embodied in the word rakia does not harmonize with 
strict philosphical truth, the answer to such an objection is, that 
the ^^Titer describes things as they appear rather than as they are. 
(Smith's "Abridged Bible Dictionary," Firmament.) 

One not acquainted with the wonderful flexibility of 
biblical interpretation, might conclude after reading this 
explicit definition of the rakia that the story of creation 
was an inspired revelation, but not true. We ourselves are 
inclined to this opinion, and we accept the conclusion 
that the Mosaic description of the firmament "does not 
harmonize with strict philosophical truth ; and possibly we 
shall conclude that all parts of the Mosaic cosmogony will 
show that the waiter who attempts to g;ive a history of the 
beginning of the universe, did nothing more than describe 
things as they appeared to his mind's eye, rather than as 
they actually were. 

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, and the herb 
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose 
seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so." 

This was on the third day, and we read that on the fifth 
day, "God created great whales and every living creature 
that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly 
after their kind." But in the evolution of life upon this 


earth, grasses, trees and plants do not precede the evolution 
of marine animals. Here again we come upon one of those 
instances where the account given does not harmonize with 
strict philosophical truth ; but the answer to such objections 
is that ''the writer describes things as they appear rather 
than as they are." In modern language we should say he 
was merely guessing at the riddle of existence. 

"And God made two great lights, and the greater to rule the 
day and the lesser to rule the night; and he made the stars also." 

The creation of the sun and the moon was on the fourth 
day. But it is not made clear how there could have been a 
morning and an evening of three previous days, in tha 
absence of the sun. Then again there is no poseible expla- 
nation for the existence of vegetation without sunlight. 

Grasses, trees, and plants will not grow without sun- 
light. And still another difficulty meets us in the same 
passage. The writer says God made two great lights, the 
greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. And 
this also is lacking in harmony with "strict philosophical 
truth," for there is only one great light; the moon has no 
light, but merely reflects the sun's rays. It is true it seems 
to be a light, and as "the writer describes things as they 
appear rather than as they are," we can hold him responsible 
only for the revelation he makes as a matter of inspiration 
and not for its truth. 

Before the sun was created, the writer gives us to un- 
derstand that the dry land appeared— or to put it more 
definitely, God commanded saying, "Let the dryland ap- 
pear." But to whom was it to appear when there was no 
eye yet created to look upon it, and if there had been, there 
was no sunlight, and therefore if the world had been full of 
eyes the land would not have appeared I This is a problem. 
Did the waters lie on the mountain tops, and refuse to run 
down to the valleys, until they were commanded? 

For how was it possible for a writer who describes things 
as they appear^ to attempt to give us a glimpse of things 
which certainly could not have appeared, only to a mind 




diseased? But not wishing to appear captious we will let 
this pass, only however with the explicit understanding that 
the writer, in this ca»e certainly attempted to describe things 
as they could not appear. 

We find our perplexities increasing as we proceed. Es- 
pecially when we attempt to read the stone book of geology 
in company with the Hebrew book of Genesis. 

Whoever he may have been, and there can be no doubt 

of the sex of the writer, as the book everywhere betrays the 

/ spirit of the " lord of creation," man, he seems to think that 

/ the earth was created before the sun, when the truth is the 

[ earth is the child of the sun. One could as well speak of a 

\ son being older than his father as to talk of the creation of 

the sun, after the earth had been created. 

Thus, statement after statement of the story about crea- 
tion falls for lack of support— and like bubbles the airy word 
pictures burst at the first touch of science. 

What gross ignorance the writer betrays in speaking of 
the vast universe. It is nothing ; it needs no extended de- 
scription, five words are enough to describe the creation of 
an infinite universe, and hence to the writer it was quite 
sufficient to merely say, " He made the stars also." And two 
of these words are supplied by the transcribers. As it 
seemed to this original cosmogonist the work of getting up 
a universe was not a matter of very great importance. 

We are not disposed to credit this story for the reason 
that, the author makes it necessary for God to take five 
days to create the solar system, but for the infinite universe 
• beyond, he needed less than one day. The Mosaic cosmog- 
onist had no soul for astronomy or he would have seen the 
necessity of more time in the creation of the starry systems. 
We could have no patience with his description if it were not 
for the fact of which we are so well assured by Smith's Bible 
Dictionary, that he is not giving us matter of fact but is 
" describing things as they appear rather than as they are." 

But no sooner do we quit one difficulty than we are 
beset with another. In looking over the leaves of the stone 


book of geology we find fossils of animals which existed 
untold ages before man, and as they had eyes there must 
therefore have been light, the sun must have existed an 
indefinitely long period before man. 

And last of all on the sixth day late on Saturday after- 
noon, God created maninhis own image. And as he stepped 
back and surveyed the week's work which was before him he 
pronounced himself satisfied with it all. Ever3i3hing was 
just as he would have it. Everything was perfect. "And 
God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was 
very good." In fact there was not a single thing he could 
see a chance to make any improvement on; for it is impossi- 
ble for us to think of a perfect creator making an imperfect 
creature. And if by any mistake he had made anything not 
just as it ought to be, and as he intended, we should think 
that knowing the fact he would make the necessary improve- 
ment ; and if he would not, then we must conclude that he is 
not infinitely good. Thus every turn we make in this story 
drives us to the conclusion that it is not true, that it is only 
an ancient myth. It is the brass of ignorance which has 
been palmed off upon us for the gold of truth. 

"So God created man in his own image," and yet in 
the next breath the writer informs us that after Adam and 
Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, they became more like 
God, and if they had been permitted to eat of the tree of 
life they would have become still more like him. But it is 
hard for one who has not been born again to understand 
how Adam and Eve could become more and more like God, 
when they were created in his image and pronounced very 

The command given them was, "Ye shall not eat of it, 
neither shall ye touch it lest ye die." But the serpent said 
unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die; for God doth 
know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be 
opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil." 

And this was just how it turned out. After they had 
eaten of this prohibited tree, they became more like the 


gods than they had been. But we are led to immediately 
to ask, could they^ave been made in the first place like 
them? And unless they were both counterfeits we cannot 
imagine how an image can be improved— that is, become 
more of an image. 

And the Lord God said, "Behold the man has become as 
one of us, (just as the serpent had foretold) to know good 
and evil." Here is a clear contradiction of terms. And in 
order to explain the mattf'r at all satisfactorily^ to ourselves 
we have to recur to the assurance of authority that it is not 
claimed that the narration is literal history of fact, but 
merely the writer's opinions of how it seemed to him it 
ought to be. 

/ "Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is 
/upon the face of all the earth, and, every tree which is the fruity^ 
\of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat." 

Here is an explicit statement of Adam's right to eat of 
any fruit he might find. But in the third chapter of this 
wonderful book, we find that there are two trees whose 
fruit he is prohibited from eating, "Of the fruit of the tree 
which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said he shall 
not eat of it." Then after Adam and Eve had refreshed 
themselves from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, which 
made them as the gods knowing good and evil, the Lord 
God said, "Now lest he put forth his hand and take also of 
the tree of life and eat and live forever , therefore the Lord 
sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground 
from whence he was taken." 

We fail to see any reason for the apparent change of 
plan in the mind of the Lord. He first grants Adam and 
Eve the privilege of eating any fruit they chose, and after- 
ward prohibited them from eating of the fruit of two trees^ 
which would have most benefited them. Certainly we can A 
see no good reason for prohibiting them from acquiring , 
knowledge, especially of good and evil, since the gods had ^ 
this sort of knowledge themselves. In fact we would natu- 
rally suppose that the more accurate man's knowledge of 


good and evil is the better off he would be ; he would cer- 
tainly be more moral. But let us imagine that it was not 
desirable for Adam and Eve to have such knowledge and 
morality and thus to resemble so clo.sely the gods them- 
polves, is there any good reason v/hy they should not have 
partaken of the fruit of the tree of life, and thereby lived for- 
ever ? Why should the fact that they had become more like 
the gods be a sufficient reason for preventing them from 
sharing in the immortal life? AVould not it have been 
altogether probable that Adam and Eve would continue 
to become more and more like the gods, seeing that they 
had begun so persistently to acquire the godlike virtues? 
"And when the woman saw the tree was good for food, 
and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired 
to make one wise," etc. We see that it was wisdom that 
was prohibited, and not murder, robbery, or drunkenness. 
Why was knowledge and wisdom forbidden to man when 
these above all things else he needed most? Why is it that 
religion has always condemned learning, discoveries, inven- 
tions, reforms, etc.? Knowledge is the forbidden fruit of all 
the gardens of the gods. But how could these celestial 
creators expect to prevent man from gaining knowledge 
after they had created him with a brain to think? To think 
is to have knowledge, and to have some knowledge is to 
thirst for more, and thus it was absolute madness to create 
man with a brain and command him not think. As well 
throw a bird into the air, and shoot it for flying, or spear a 
fish for swimming in the water, as to damn a human being 
for coming into possession of the knowledge of good and evil. 
The story seems to imply many contradictions which are 
not explicitly expressed. For Adam and Eve must have 
been moral beings to have understood the supposed com- 
mands of God. If they were moral then they already knew 
what good and evil was. The way in which this primitive 
couple acquired knowledge reminds one of the description 
f of the creation of the sun. In the first chapter of this won- 
derful book, we find light created, and on the fourth day 


afterward the 8un is made. This is reversing the order of 
cause and effect, as in«ttiis effect comes before cause. There 
I is this explanation, however, that the world was ne\v and 
V had not got fairly into working order. 

In the case of Adam and Eve, we have no such explana- 
tion to offer. We find them from the very first moment, 
rational beings, and of course having a knowledge of good 
and evil; but the historian who gives us the account, de- 
clares that they came into the possession of knowledge not 
by virtue of their brains; but because of their eating of 
certain fruit. The effect is made to be the cause. 

There is only one way out of the dilemma. The writer 
described things "as they seemed rather than as they are." 

Even so great a man as the Hon. W. E. Gladstone has 
to betake himself to specious arguments in attempting to 
refute the testimony of science when opposed to Genesis. 
His logic is kindred to that quoted from Smith's Bible Dic- 
tionary, wherein the writer says of the author of Genesis 
that he "describes things as they appear, rather than as 
they are." Mr. Gladstone in the " Order of Creation," says : 

Proceeding, on what I hold to be open ground, to state my 
own idea of the key to the meaning of the Mosaic record (Gren- 
esis), I suggest that it was intended to give moral, and not 
scientific instruction to those for whom it was written. 

Who was it that "intended to give moral, and not sci- 
entific instruction?" If it was the author of Genesis who 
intended it for only moral instruction, then it cannot be 
claimed to be a revleation from God; but if on the other 
hand it was God who intended to give only moral instruc- 
tion, then he is responsible for making the author of Genesis 
record that which is not true. What a sight for gods and 
men ! To see the ex-premier of England pettifogging at the 
bar of Reason for a dying, nay dead superstition ; for cer- 
tainly Genesis as a revelation is dead so far as reason and 
science are concerned. 

But this hostility to knowledge instituted in the garden 
of Eden has been perpetuated through all the ages. Faith 


has been held up as the all-important virtue, as by it the 
priests could get the people to believe anything. Somewhere 
Goethe says, "Belief is not the beginning but the end of 
knowledge." In the early days of the church it was found 
necessary to abandon reason. The world had too many 
philosophers who stood prepared to expose the supersti- 
tions which set themselves up with authority. The injunction 
given to and heeded by chiefly the low and ignorant was, 
'' Do not examine ; only believe and thy faith will make thee 
blessed." "Wisdom is a bad thing in life, foolishness is to 
be preferred." But this sentiment was older than that date, 
for we find in the writings of Paul the same teaching, "If 
any man among you see met h to be wise, let him become a 
fool that he may be wise." At another time he insists that, 
" We are fools for Christ's sake." 

My advice is to eat of the fruit of knowledge, and have 
your eyes opened to the truth no matter what it is. It 
may be that some delusive Santa Claus may fade away in 
the distance before your clearer vision. Let it go. Nothing 
is so expensive as error. Seek to know the truth, and strug- 
gle to throw off such prejudices as tempt you to fashion 
truth to your own intellectual myopia or moral obliquities. 
Eat and become more truly a man ; eat and become more 
beautifully a woman. 

"And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, 
and to everything that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is 
life I have given every herb for meat." 

This writer never visited a menagerie. His knowledge 
/ of the habits of the animal kingdom are as innocent as if he 
had never sought for knowledge, had never examined nat- 
ural historv, or else he would have known that such animals 
as lions, tigers, and wolves could not feed on grass. The 
vultures of the air do not live upon seeds or hay, but must 
have fish or flesh, Daniel going into a den of lions fed on 
hay, would be about as brave as a milk maid's going into 
the stall to milk a cow. We cannot conjecture what state 
of mind the Mosaic cosmogonist could have been in when 


he described the lion as a herbivorous animal. It is so wide 
a departure from the most common knowledge of the habits 
of animals that our confidence in the accuracy of the histo- 
rian is greatly shaken. 

It is commonly believed that if man had not eaten of 
the forbidden fruit he would have been immortal. Now the 
very fact that Adam and Eve ate at all, proves them to have 
been mortal. For eating implies a nutritive system, which 
means growth, maturity, and decay of the organism. Death 
is natural, and not a penalty—not a curse pronounced upon 
the primitive pair for disobedience. They would have died 
even if they had j^artaken of the tree of life. 

And in connection with this erroneous idea of the loss of 
immortality is another respecting labor. It has been a doc- 
trine taught by the church that labor is a curse pronounced 
upon the family of man in consequence of Adam's trans- 
gression, and proof often quoted is, "In the sweat of thy 
face shalt thou eat bread." 

This is the consequence of cherishing an ambition to 
become more like the gods. Because he was foolish enough 
to disobey in the matter of tasting some tempting fruit 
which attracted his eye, he and all his posterity must toil 
hard to get a mere subsistence, and then go to hell and 
roast forever. To an ordinary man this seems rather rough 
for so small an offense— to sweat in this life is bad enough, 
but to roast in another is too much, and we utter our right- 
eous protest against it. And since we now have our choice 
between hell, hades, sheol or gehenna I, for one, prefer hades 
as its temperature is lower. 

But this story like many others lacks consistency. For 
we read that before Adam transgressed the commandment, 
"The Lord took the man and put him into the garden of 
Eden to dress it and to keep it." This looks like work, and 
gardeners and farmers would look upon all such arrange- 
ments as work, especially would they thus regard it, if the 
garden was large and it was the duty of one person to take 
the entire care of it, to that is, do all the work. 


Labor therefore was natural to man and did not come 
upon him as a curse. It was not in consequence of liis eating 
prohibited apples that the necessity of toil was imposed 
upon him as a curse, but because mental and physical activ- 
ity are natural, and he couid not exist without them. 

Labor is natural and honorable. The hands and brain 
of man imply labor, as necessarily as the lungs imply air, or 
the gills of the fish imply water. Man could not exist with- 
out it; but the great evil which has arisen is the abuse of 
labor. Some have been enabled to get possession of wealth 
and thereby have the power to control the laborer and 
take sucli a share out of the profits of his toil as they see 
fit. The stronger prey upon the weaker. Our present civiU- 
zation does not civilize, because it does not remove this relic 
of barbarism which allows the rich to rob the poor of the 
profits of their labor. The laborer who produces the wealth 
of the country is the one who does not get its benefits. Tlie 
old form of European civilization which justifies and aids 
the rich in becoming richer and making the poor poorer is 
beginning to show traces of its existence in this country. 
And we must say we cannot see how or when this sort of 
civilization with gilded top and rotten base is to come to an 
end. Surely there is no way out of our barbarous degreda- 
tion except by the development of the individual through 
his intelligence into liberty, morality, and manhood. 

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every 
beast of the field, and every fowl of tlie air, and brought 
them unto Adam to see what he would name them." Some 
animals, as the Armadillo, and Sloth of South America 
would consume more time in going from South America to 
the garden of Eden, than Adam's life (covered. And how 
could tliG polar bear and the humming bird of the tropics 
pass through the different temperatures to reach the garden 
of Eden? and how long could they survive if they were oven 
there, and how could they find their way back to their 
former habitats? Did the fish all swim up to the shore and 
range themselves in a row to be named ? 


We wish to call attention to the grand review of the ani- 
mals, to point out the implication that Adam could not 
find a helpmeet amo»g them. We read : ^ 

"And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of 
the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to 
see what he would name them. And whatsoever Adam called every 
living creature that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names 
to all the cattlo, to the fowl of the air, to every beast of the field, 
but for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him." 

Now the very words, "was not found," imply that 
search was made for a helpmeet, but none could be found. 
And because none could be found, therefore the Lord God 
went immediately to work to make a woman for Bim. The 
Creator threw him into a deep sleep, and while in that un- 
conscious condition and unable to do or say a thing in his 
own defense, the Lord took out a rib, or as IngersoU says, 
"a cutlet," while Dr. Talmage insists that God took out 
Adam's "side" and reformed it into a woman-, and as the text 
reads, "Brought her unto the man." Was he not there 
right on the spot? Was it necessary for the Lord after 
taking out the rib to go off a distance by himself that he 
might finish the work undisturbed? Unless something of 
the kind was necessary we do not see the force of the sen- 
tence, "Brought her unto the man." 

The Greenlanders have a story that relates the creation 
of woman from man's thumb. This is significant and much 
more probable. There is wisdom in this even if it be re- 
garded as a myth. The bare fact that woman has always 
been under man's thumb shows some kinetic relation. The 
-masculine gender has not been reluctant to manifest a dis- 
position to preserve the gentler sex in this position. He 
calls her by pet names, and bestows compliments upon her, 
and declares upon the honor of a despot that there is no 
name so sacred as mother, and that there is no virtue so 
precious as that possessed by woman— he will even die for 
her, but still he prefers to keep her in subjection under his 
thumb. Liberty will come to woman when she becomes 


tired of being a mere plaything, a pet, a favorite slave, and 
then, and not till then may she rise into the full dignity of 
womanhood, and throw off thumb authority and all allegi- 
ance to the legends which give the thumb its authority. 
Woman needs again to eat of the tree of knowledge of good 
and evil, even if she be driven out of the social garden and 
ostracised therefrom with the flaming sword of respecta- 
bility guarding the gates against her return. Her first 
rebellion brought knowledge and progress to man, and her 
second rebellion must be against both God and man. 

"And the serpent said unto the woman, ye shall not 
surely die." Never in the history of snakes was there a 
match for this first one. It is highly probable that his 
snakeship did not have a protracted existence after this 
emeute of the garden. In fact we never hear of him more. 
Some historians say he changed his name and went west, and 
some have gone so far as to say that Satan, who attacked 
Job many centuries after the seduction of Adam and Eve 
was nothing more than the old Serpent under a new name. 
One thing is certain, and that is, that the snake in the 
garden of Eden immortalized himself in a short time. But we 
can hardly comprehend the curse pronounced upon it for so 
laudable a work. This was the curse : "Above all cattle, and 
above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go 
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." It 
would seem from this, that the serpent did not go nat- 
urally upon his belly, but some how or oth* he diddled 
along on the tip end of his tail. We fail to see any reason 
for this sort of locomotion unless it was to help him look out 
for other snakes. And we are perplexed to understand why 
he should be sentenced to eat dust. If he was cursed, it 
seems that the curse is quite conveniently borne by him ; for 
he finds it just to his gait to go upon his belly, and as for 
eating dust, he never did and never will. He is defiant, re- 
bellious, and successful. 

The more we study the character of this original snake 
the more we find to admire in him. 


It is true we do*ot always understand just how things 
could happen as they did, but we take them as they read 
and make the best of them. For instance we can form no 
idea of how it was possible for the serpent to talk to Eve, 
and reason with her like a philosopher. He talked to her 
the same as if he had had vocal organs, and a brain sim- 
ilar but superior to man's. Unless he had a mouth and 
head like a human being we cannot see how he could have 
talked ; and if his head was of that type we cannot see how 
he could have been called a snake. There was a great many 
suggestions prompted by reading the account of this won- 
derful serpent. We cannot understand why he should have 
been made. Or why, if it were necessary to have him, he 
was not placed under some restraint ? Why was he not cre- 
ated so that God himself could govern him? Or why after 
seeing he had made him a little too wise, and a trifle too 
devilish he did not kill him ? Or if that were impracticable 
or impossible, why did he not put up signs on all the fences 
around Eden, "Adam and Eve beware of snakes! " 

"And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the pres- 
ence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And 
the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, where 
art thou?" But we are amazed at the very thought that 
it was possible for them to get out of sight of the omniscient 
eye! We read in many books, and have heard it all our 
lives that God sees all things, but according to this account, 
his first creatures, fresh from his plastic hands, and very 
near to him got beyond his omniscient sight. How could 
this be, when "the eyes of the Lord are in every place be- 
holding the evil and the good?" 

"For his eyes are upon the ways of man and he seeth all his 

"For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole 

And yet, notwithstanding he made all things, and sees 
all things, and knows all things, Adam and Eve were able 
to get behind the trees and hide away out of his sight. 


On another occasion it is recorded that the Lord had 
come down from heaven to see whether the reports which 
were bronj^ht up to him were true or not. ''And the Lord 
came down to see the city and the tower which the children 
of men builded." And in still another place it is written: 
"And the Lord said because of the city of Sodom and Go- 
morrah is great and because their sin is grievous I will go 
down now and see whether they have done according to the 
cry of it, which is come up before me, and if not I will know." 

And yet other equally inspired writers, describing things 
as they appeared rather than as they are, solemnly declare 
that " all things are naked and open to him with whom we 
have to do." 

But we pass on leaving Adam behind the tree, hid away 
from the presence of the Lord, to notice other sacred pas- 
sages which are not in harmony with strict philosophical 

"Unto the woman he said, I will gTeatly multiply thy 
sorrow ; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy 
desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee." 
Now there is no reason to suppose that the pain of childbirth 
has ever been increased in woman. Her physiological struc- 
ture has in no way undergone a radical change. Besides, all 
animals bearing offspring bear pains. Did the curse upon 
woman extend to the females of animals bearing offspring? 
But wherein does the male suffer his share in this divine 

"And he shall rule over thee." This is a matter of fact 
—and is equally true of those people who know nothing of 
Israel or Israel's god. Man has ruled over woman in all 

times and in all countries, and will continue to reign over 
her until she aspires to and contends for her rights. 

The path of woman's future is steep, slippery, and long. 
Many ages will pass before she attains the glory and beauty 
possible to womanhood, but with prophetic eyes we see that 
time coming. With joy we labor and wait, that at some fut- 
ure day this world will be inade happy nnd grand through 


the evolution of truth, love, and Hberty in the elevation 
of woman. ^ 

Another part of the curse is that, "Thorns and thistles 
shall it (the ground) bring forth," but geology shows that 
thorns and thistles were as plentiful in the primeval world 
as they are now. Hence there must be some mistake on the 
part of the writer in setting down the origin of thorns and 
thistles for that particular date. 

"And Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of 
all hving." 

This is another astonishing statement. Eve was the 
mother of all (human beings) Uving, and there were none 
living but herself and Adam ! If she was the mother of all 
living, she was not only Adam's mother, but her own mother 

It is true that when Cain grew to manhood and slew his 
brother, there were some people down in the land of Nod, 
but what God made them we have no means of knowing. 
They were not a people of much consequence as no notice is 
taken of them by our author, and besides they permitted 
Cain to come and live among them and take a wife. Per- 
haps these people were before Adam and Eve, for it is stated 
that in the city there were workers of iron and brass. Brass 
is a compound of copper and zinc, and these workers must 
have had a knowledge of the arts of mining and compound- 
ing metals. The mark, too, was set upon Cain that " whoso- 
ever" might not slay him; then there must have been a 
"whosoever." It is very likely that if Cain built a city he 
must have had the aid of carpenters and workmen, and it 
may be that he found his wife in the land of Nod among the 
"whosoever" "workers in of iron and brass." I think the 
clergy will agree that there was a "whosoever." It would 
have been needless to put a mark on Cain to preserve his 
life from a "whosoever" if there were no "whosoever," and 
my opinion is that. Mr. Cain married some of the daughters 
of Mr. "Whosoever" in the land of Nod. 


"And Adam called his wife Eve because she was the 
mother of all living!" That eclipses everything. And we 
were about concluding that nothing of the kind had ever 
been Imown before, but we remember the story about Aha- 
ziah, and that he was two years older than his father. 

Thirty and two years old was ho ( Jehoram) when he began to 
reign, and ho reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 

And Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. 

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to 
reign. (Kings 8 : 17, 24, 26.) 

In the book of Chronicles we have another account. 

Thirty and two years old was ho (Jehoram) when he began to 
reign and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. And the inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his 
stead. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to 
reign. (2 Chron. 21 : 20, and 2 Chron. 20 : 1, 2.) 

Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he came to the 
throne, and he reigned eight years, which made him forty 
years old at his death, and his son Ahaziah who took up 
the reins of government which dropped from the hands of 
his father, was forty-two years old— just two years older 
than his father, and the youngest son at that. 

"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats 
of sldns and clothed them." 

There is no description of the style of these dresses, and 
we are left without data for judging of their fitness, only we 
are inclined to the opinion that the country where it was 
just the temperature for the natives to go naked, skin coats 
would be a trifle too winterish in style. We fail too see the 
necessity for such heavy clothing, or in fact for any clothing 
at all, inasmuch as they were created to go naked. For we 
read that, "They were both naked the man and his wife, 
and were not ashamed." Or if the^'- must have some pro- 
tection for their modesty why were not fig-leaf aprons quite 
sulficient for that climate? And still further we can see no 
necessity for the Lord to turn tailor and nuike their clothes 
when Adam and Eve had already learned to sew; for "they 


sewed fig-leaves tcfg^ether and made themselves aprons," 
and as the seasons changed they could easily have learned 
to make garments of comfort for themselves, and also to set 
the fashions for the rest of the world. The origin of the uni- 
verse is an insoluble mystery. And yet to the uninformed 
mind it seems to be no problem at all. We daily hear such 
people reasoning in this way: "There must have been a 
First Cause of all things, and that First Cause we call God." 
It is only because the mind of man is uninformed, that he 
reasons in this way. It requires only a little reflection to 
see that there could have been no First Cause. It is clear 
that every cause must have an effect, for unless it produces 
an effect it cannot be a cause. Hence we cannot infer that 
there can be an effect which of itself does not become a 
cause, producing other effects, so that it is absolutely im- 
possible in the nature of cause and effect, for a last cause or 
a first cause to exist. As a last cause would be a cause only 
when it produced an effect, and the last effect would be an 
effect only when it became a, cause. It is equally true "^hdt 
there could be no First Cause ; for whatever is, is the result 
of some previous cause. We can view causation only as a 
chain in form of a circle. 

"If we apply to this question the notion of time we see 
the limit of our thought, because if we try to think of an ab- 
solute creative power before creation, we discover that the 
idea is unthinkable, as infinite and absolute creative power 
in the presence of inactivity and nothing are incompatible. 
It could not have been creative power without creating 
something. We are therefore unable to think of absolute 
creative power as inert — we are equally unable to think of 
it inactive in the presence of chaos, and as impotent to con- 
ceive of its existence as absolute. We cannot think of it 
existing after creation, as rest and inactivity are again in- 
compatible with the notion of force." 

We may look at this subject in whatever way we choose 
we shall find that in no way whatever can we form any idea 
of a First Cause, an infinite and absolute Creator. Let us 


see. "The First Cause cannot be absolute, that is, it can- 
not exist out of all relation to the universe. Whereas a 
cause not only sustains some relation to its effect j but exists 
as a cause only by virtue of such relations. Suppress the 
effect and the cause has ceased to be a cause. Absolute 
cause, therefore, is like the phrase, circular triangle. The 
two words stand for conceptions which cannot be made to 
unite. We attempt, says Mr. Mansel, to escape from this 
apparent contradiction by introducing the succession of 
time. The absolute exists first by itself and afterward 
becomes a cause. But here we are checked by the third con- 
ception of the infinite. How can the infinite become that 
which it has not from the first." ( " Fisk's Cosmic Philos,." ) 

Look at it whatever way we may the finite mind cannot 
grasp the conception of the infinite. Nay, cannot know of 
the existence of the infinite. Hence all efforts to explain the 
First Cause, the absolute, and the infinite, are more artifi- 
cial and unreal than painted ships upon a painted sea. 

We may view the subject in still another light. If God 
reasons, his knowledge is limited and he is finite. Man rea- 
sons because his knowledge is circumscribed. If he knew 
everything he would have no doubts, and hence would not 
need to investigate, experiment, recollect, and compare. He 
would not be compelled to lay down certain definite data, 
and follow their implications through rules of logic, and 
through scientific experiment in order to reach conclusions. 
The end would be as clearly before his mind as the begin- 
ning; in fact there would be to such a mind no beginning 
and no end. But we cannot imagine an infinite being who 
needs to recollect past events. But i we deny that in the 
mind of God there is the faculty of memory, we thereby deny 
that he reasons. The same may be said of doubt, for if the 
mind of God is never troubled with doubts, it is simply be- 
cause he does not reason. Much of the mind's activity is 
employed in doubts. Doubt and inquiry are necessary ele- 
ments of thought. Does God doubt? Does ho investigate, 
compare, and test matters by experiment? If lie does then 


he is not infinite, and v^he does not, then he does not rea- 
son. Has he imagination? If he exercises this important 
function of the mind then he deals in unrealities, idealizes, 
has dreams, cherishes visions, builds air castles. If he does 
not thus exercise imagination he cannot be said to reason. 

It is an old argument that design implies a designer. 
The essential -weakness of this argument lies in what is 
called "proofs of design." And in support of this idea it is 
commonly urged that there are everywhere apparent in nat- 
ure evidences of order, harmony, and adaptation. But to 
put this argument into a sentence, the maggot in the cheese 
could offer the same arguments to show there was a design 
in his position in the cheese. He could argue that everything 
about him showed order, harmony, and adaptation. It was 
just the cheese for him. 

But even if we should admit this statement, it would 
not prove the existence of God, for if an intelhgent mind 
had created the universe, it is certain that that mind itself 
must have been governed by law which yields to order, har- 
mony, and adaptation, and if these imply a designer in one 
case they must also in the other, and therefore every de- 
signer must have had a designer. 

The Difference Between the Two Cosmogonies as Given in the 
First Two Chapters of Genesis. 

In the first, the earth emerges from the waters and is 
therefore saturated with moisture. (Gen. 1: 9, 10.) In the 
second, the whole face of the ground requires to be moist- 
ened. (Gen. 2: 6.) 

In the first, the birds and beasts are created before man. 
(Gen. 1 : 20, 24, 26.) In the second, man is created before 
the birds and beasts. (Gen. 2: 7, 9.) 

In the first, all the "fowls that fly" are made out of the 
waters. (Gen. 1 : 20.) In the second, the "fowls of the air" 
are made out of the ground. (Gen. 2 : 19.) 


In the first, man is made lord of the whole earth. (Gen. 
1 : 28.) In the second, he is mt^rely placed in the garden ^'f 
Eden to dress it and to keep it. (Gen. 2 : 8, 15.) 

In the first, man and woman are created together. (Gen. 
1 : 28.) In the second, the beasts and birds are created be- 
tween the man and woman. (Gen. 2 : 7, 8, 15, 22.)— Bishop 

Evidence of the Vast Age of the Universe. 

" I have looked further into space than ever human being 
did before me. I have observed stars, of which the light, it 
can be proved, must take two millions of years to reach this 
earth. Nay more, if those distant bodies had ceased to ex- 
ist two million of years ago, we should still see them, as 
the light would travel after the body was gone. * * * 

"The light from the nearest star requires some three 
years to reach the earth. From a star one thousand three 
hundred and forty-four times farther it would require about 
four thousand years, and for such a cluster as we have im- 
agined, no less than six thousand years are needed." (Sir 
Wm. Herschell, "Life and Works of Sir Wm. Herschell" by 
Edward S. Holden.) . 

Sir Wm. Thomson, in Encyclopedia Britannica, article, 
Geology, showed from data available at the time, "that the 
superficial consolidation of the globe (this earth) could not 
have occurred less than twenty millions of years ago." 

"And as any table of the earth's crust will shov/ you 
there are rocks above and below the chalk, for the produc- 
tion of which millions heaped upon millions of yean? were 
required." (Clodd's "Childhood of Religions." ) 

Such eminent scientists as Sir AVm. Thomson, Helmholtz, 
Newcomb, Croll, Bishop, lleade, Lyell, Darwin, and others 
think it would have taken many millions of years for the 
original nebulae to condense to the present dimensions of 
the sun. 


"A prophecy, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, 
signifies a prediction of future events, which could not have 
been foreseen by human sagacity, and the knowledge of 
which was supernaturally communicated to the prophet. 
It is clear, therefore, that in order to establish the claim of 
anticipatory statement, promise, or denunciation, to the 
rank of a prophecy, four points must be ascertained with 
precision; namely, (1.) what the event was to which the 
alleged prediction was intended to refer; (2.) that the pre- 
diction was uttered in specific, not vague, language before 
the event; (3.) that the event took place specifically, not 
loosely, as predicted; (4.) and that it could not have been 
foreseen by human sagacity. * * * 

'* It is probably not too much to aflBrm that we have no 
instance in the prophetical books of the Old Testament of a 
prediction, in the case of which we possess, at once and com- 
bined, clear and unsuspicious proof of the date, the precise 
event predicted, the exact circumstances of the event, and 
the inability of human sagacity to foresee it. 

The state of the case appears to be this : That all the 
Old Testament prophesies have been assumed to be genuine 
inspired predictions; and, when falsified in their obvious 
meaning and received interpretation, by the event, have re- 
ceived immediately a new interpretation, and been supposed 
to refer to some other event. When the result has disap- 
pointed expectation, the conclusion has been, not that the 
prophecy was false, but the interpretation was erroneous. 


It is obvious that a mode of reasoning like this is peculiar 
to theological inquirers. * * * 

''In justification of this idea of a double sense, he (Dr. 
Arnold) continues : ' The notion of a double sense in proph- 
ecy has been treated by some persons with contempt. Yet 
it may be said that it is almost necessarily involved in the 
idea of prophecy. Every prophecy has according to the 
very definition of the word, a double source ; it has, if I may 
venture so to speak, two authors, the one human, the other 
divine. ... If uttered by the tongue of man, it must 
also, unless we suppose him to be a mere instrument (in the 
same sense as a flute or a harp), be colored by his own mind. 
The prophet expresses in words certain truths conveyed to 
his mind; but his mind does not fully embrace them, nor 
can it ; for how can ma.n fully comprehend the mind of God ? 
Every man lives in time, and belongs to time ; the present 
must be to him clearer than the future. . . . But with 
God there is no past, nor future ; every truth is present to 
him in all its extent, so that his expression, if I may so 
* speak, differs essentially from that which can be compre- 
hended by the mind, or uttered by the tongue of man. Thus 
every prophecy as uttered by man (that is, by an intelligent 
and not a mere mechanical instrument), and at the same 
time as inspired by God, must, so far as appears, have a 
double sense; one, the sense entertained by the human 
mind of the writer ; the other, the sense infused into it by- 
God.' We must confess our amazement at the obvious and 
extreme unsoundness of this whole passage. Not only does 
it painfully remind us of the double meaning so often and 
so justly charged upon the Pagan oracles— but it assumes 
the strange and contradictory improbabilities: first, that 
God was unable to convej^ his meaning to the mind of the 
prophet; secondly, that he infused this meaning into the 
words which were uttered, although he could not infuse it 
into llio mind of the man who uttered them; and thirdly, 
that wo can see further into the mind and meaning of God 
than those to whom he spoke; that they in expressing the 


ideas which he had put into their minds, mistook or imper- 
fectly conceived tho!# ideas,— but that to us is given to 
discover a thought which those words contained, but did not 
express, or which, if they did express it, they were not under- 
stood by the writer to express. Now, either the ideas which 
God A\ished to communicate were conveyed to the mind of 
the prophet, or they were not ; if they were so conveyed, then 
the prophet must have comprehended them, and intended to 
express them correctly— for it is monstrous to suppose that 
God would infuse ideas into a man's mind for the purpose of 
being communicated to the public; which ideas he yet did 
not enable him to communicate; and then all the above 
confused subtleties fall to the ground. If, on the other 
hand, these ideas were not so conveyed to the prophet's 
mind, then it must have been the words and not the ideas 
which were inspired, and God used the prophet simply as a 
flute (a supposition scouted by Dr. Arnold) and we are thus 
driven to the equally monstrous supposition that God used 
words which did not convey his meaning, even to the very 
favored individual to whom and through whom he spoke." 
(Greg's ''Creed of Christendom," pp. 76, 92,) 

"We have already had ample proof that the Jewish 
writers not only did not scruple to narrate past events as if 
predicting future ones— to present history in the form of 
prophecy, but that they habitually did so. The original 
documents from which the books of Moses were compiled, 
must have been written, as we have seen in the time of the 
.earliest kings, while the book of Deuteronomy was not com- 
posed, and the whole Pentateuch did not assume its present 
form till, probably, the reign of Josiah; yet they abound 
in such anticipatory narrative — in predictions of events long 
past. The instances are far too numerous to quote.'* 
(Greg's "Creed of Christendom," p. 86.) 

" There is not throughout the whole Bible any word that 
describes to us what we call a j^oet, nor any word that de- 
scribes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word 
prophet, to which latter times have affixed new ideas, was 


the Bible word for poet, and the word prophesying meant 
the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing 
poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music. 

"■ We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns 
—of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbols, 
and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. 
Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with 
a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning, 
or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contempt- 
uous, because we have changed the meaning of the word. 

" We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and 
also that he prophesied, but we are not told what they 
prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was 
nothing to tell ; for these prophets were a company of musi- 
cians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this 
was called prophesying."— Thomas Paine on the Prophecies. 

"There is no reason to think that a prophet ever 
received a revelation which was not spoken directly and 
pointedly to his own time. (Ency. Brit. " Bible." ) 

"It is plain, however, that the whole work (the Penta- 
teuch) is not the uniform production of one pen, but that 
in some way a variety of records of different ages, and 
styles have been combined to form a single narrative. Ac- 
cordingly, Jewish tradition bears evidence that Moses wrote 
the Pentateuch, Joshua the book named after him, Samuel 
the book of Judges, and so forth. As all Hebrew history is 
anoDymous, a sure sign that people had not yet learned to 
lay weight on questions of authorship, it is not probable 
that this tradition rests on any surer ground than conject- 
ure." (Ency. Brit., "Bible.") 

"I have now fully and fairly analyzed and exposed many 
of the most important prophecies or pretended prophecies 
of the whole Bible, I have shown that very few of them 
are real prophecies at all; that those whicli are real proph- 
ecies, very few ever have been, or ever can be fulfilled; that 
the very few whicli seem to have been fulfilled were written 


after the occurrence of the events claimed to be their fulfil- 
ments, and that, whe*rher fulfilled or unfulfilled, none of 
these prophecies ever have been, or ever can be, of any ser- 
vice to the world. And thus fall all the prophetic props of 
priestcraft. Not one of them can bear the test of fair exam- 
ination." (Kelso's " Bible Analayzed." ) 


"At the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true 
character of Christianity we are brought face to face with 
the supernatural. Christianity professes to be a Divine 
Revelation of truths which the human intellect could not 
otherwise have discovered. It is notaforra of religion devel- 
oped by the wisdom of man and appealing to his reason, but 
a system miraculously communicated to the human race, 
the central doctrines of which are either supernatural or 
untenable. If the truths said to be revealed were either of 
an ordinary character, or naturally attainable they would 
at once discredit the claim to divine origin. No one could 
maintain that a system discoverable by reason would be 
supernaturally communicated. The whole argument for 
Christianity turns upon the necessity of such a revelation, 
and the consequent probabihty that it would be made. * * 

"The spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence, indeed, 
has always been advanced as a special characteristic of 
Christianity logically entitling it to acceptance in contra- 
distinction to all other religions. 'It is an acknowledged 
historical fact,' says Bishop Butler, 'that Christianity of- 
fered itself to the world, and demanded to be received, upon 
the allegation, that is, as unbelievers would speak, upon the 
pretence of miracles, publicly wrought to attest the truth 
of it. in such an age; . . . and Christianity, including the 
dispensation of the Old Testament, seems distinguished by 
this from all other religions.' 

"Having then ascertained that miracles are absolutely 
necessary to attest the reliability of a Divine Revelation we 


may proceed to examine them more closely, and for tbo 
present we shall confine ourselves to the representation of 
these phenomena which are in the Bible. Throughout tlic 
Old Testament the doctrine is inculcated that supernatural 
communications must have supernatural attestation. iUxl 
is described as arming his servants with power to periorin 
wonders, in order that they may thus be accredited as \\':', 
special messengers. The Patriarchs and the people of Israel 
generally are represented as demanding ' a sign ' of the real- 
it}^ of the communications said to come from God, without 
which, we are led to suppose, they not only w ould not have 
believed, but would have been justified in disbelieving, that 
the messengers actually came from him. Thus Gideon asks 
for a sign that the Lord talked with him. 

'And the Lord said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, 
and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.' 

'And he (Gideon) said unto him. If now I have found 
grace in thy sight, then show me a sign that thou talkest 
with me.' (Judges 6 : 16, 17.) 

"And Hezekiah demands proof of the truth of Isaiah's 
prophecy that he should be restored to health. 

'And Hezekiah >said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign 
that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up unto the 
house of the Lord the third day? ' (2 Kings 20 : 8.) 

"It is, however, unnecessary to refer to instances, for it 
may be affirmed that upon all occasions, miraculous evi- 
dence of an alleged divine mission is stated to have been 
required and accorded. 

"The startling information is at the same time given, 
however, that miracles may be wrought to attest what is 
false as well as to accredit what is true. In one place, it is 
declared that if a prophet actually gives a sign or wonder 
and it comes to pass, but teaches the people on the strength 
of it, to follow other gods, they are not to hearken to him, 
and the prophet is to be put to death. 

' If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of 
dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or 


wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, 
Let ns go after other gods which thou hast not known, and 
let us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words 
of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.' (Dent. 18 : 1. 
2, 3.) 

" The false miracle is here attributed to God himself. 

' For the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether 
you love the Lord your God with all j^our heart and with 
all your soul.' (Dent. 13: 3.) 

" In the book of the prophet Ezekiel the case is stated in 
a still stronger way, and God is represented as directly de- 
ceiving the prophet. 

'And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a/ 
thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and 1 will /^ 
stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him Trom ^- 
the midst of my people Israel.' (Ezek. 14: 9.) 

"The narrative of God's hardening Pharaoh's heart in 
order to bring more plagues upon the land of Egpyt is in 
this vein. God, in fact, is represented as exerting his al- 
mighty power to deceive a man and theu destroying him for 
being deceived. In the same spirit is the passage in which 
Micaiah describes the Lord as putting a lying spirit into the 
mouths of the prophets who incited Ahab to go to Ramoth- 
gilead. (1 Kings 22 : 14-23.) 

"The miracles wrought by the Egyptians sorcerers in 
competing with Moses were done by another ])()wer than 
God. We have notable instances of the belief in signs and 
wonders wrought by this other power. Jesus is represented 
as warning his disciples against false prophets, who work 
signs and wonders. 

'Many will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, have wo 
not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out dev- 
ils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? of whom 
l^i should say, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that 
work ini(iuity.' ( Mat. 7 : 22, 23. ) 

And agjiin in another place; 


'For false prophets shall arise, and shall work sigus and 
?\onders. to seduce, if '^ were po<5sible, the elect.' (Mark 
13: 22.) 

/^ Also, when the I*harisees accuse him of casting out dev- 
' ils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils, Jesus asks : ' By 
whom do your children cast them out?' a reply which 
would lose all its point if they were not admitted to be able 
to cast out devils. In another passage John is described as 
saving: 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy 
name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him.' Without 
multiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of 
the fact that the reality of false miracles and lying wonders 
is admitted in the Bible. The obvious deduction from this 
representation of miracles is that the source and purpose of 
such supernatural phenomena must always be exceedingly 
uncertain. Their evidential value is, therefore, profoundly 
affected, 'it being,' as Dr. Newman has said of ambigu- 
ous miracles, ' antecedently improbable that the Almighty 
should rest the credit of his Revelation upon events which 
but obscurely implied his immediate presence.' As it is 
affirmed that other supernatural beings exist, as well as an 
assumed personal God, by whose agency miracles are per- 
formed, it is impossible to argue with reason that such 
phenomena are at any time especially due to the interven- 
tion of the Deity. Dr. Newman recognizes this, but passes 
over the difficulty with masterly lightness of touch. After 
advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of 
spirits is only derived from scripture, and that their exist- 
ence cannot be deduced from nature, whilst he asserts that 
the being of a God — a personal God be it remembered — can 
be so discovered, and that, therefore, miracles can only prop- 
erly be attributed to him, he proceeds: 'Still it may be 
necessary to show that on our own principles we are not 
open to inconsistency. That is, it has been questioned 
whether, in admitting the existence and power of the spirits 
on the authority of Revelation, we are not in danger of in- 
validating the evidence upon which that authority rests. 


For the cogency of the argument for miracles depends on 
the assumption, that interruptions in the course of nature 
must ultimately proceed from God; which is not true, if 
they may be effected by other beings without his sanction. 
And it must be conceded, that, explicit as scripture is in con- 
sidering miracles as signs of divine agency, it still does seem 
to give created spirits some power of working them ; and 
even, in its most literal sense, intimates the possibility of 
their working them in opposition to the true doctrine (Deut. 
13: 1-3; Mat. 24: 24; 2 Thes. 2: 9-11).' (Dr. Newman's 
Two Essays on Miracles, p. 31.) 

"Dr. Newman repudiates the attempts of various writ- 
ers to overcome this difficulty by making a distinction 
between great miracles and small, man^^ miracles and few, 
or by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested in or- 
der to determine the author of the miracles, or by denying 
the power of spirits altogether, and explaining away script- 
ure statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative 
of the Lord's temptation ' Without having recourse to any 
of these dangerous modes of answering the objection,' he 
says, ' it may be sufficient to reply, that, since, agreeably to ^ 
the antecedent sentiment of reason, God has adopted mir- 
acles as the seal of a divine message, we believe he will never 
suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive the humble 
inquirer.' ( Ibid. p. 51. ) 

" This is the only reply which even so powerful a reasoner 
as Dr. Newman can give to an objection based on distinct 
statements of scripture itself. He cannot deny the valWity 
of the objection, he can only hope or believe in spite of it. 
I'crsonal belief independent of evidence is the most common 
and the weakest of arguments; at best it is prejudice masked 
in the garb of reason. It is perfectly clear that miracles 
being thus acknowledged to be common botli to God and to 
other spirits they cannot be consiiha'ed a distinctive attes- 
tation of divine intervention; and as Spinoza finely argued, 
not even the mere existence of God, can be inferred from 
them; for as a miracle is a liiuited act and never expressed 


more than certain and limited power, it is certain that we 
cannot from such ai^effect, conclude even the existence of a 
cause whose power is infinite. 

"This dual character obviously leads to many difficul- 
ties in defining: the evidential function and force of miracles, 
and we may best appreciate the dilemma which is involved 
by continuing to follow the statements and arguments of 
divines themselves. To the question whether miracles are 
absolutely to command the obedience of those in whose 
sight they are performed, and whether upon their attesta- 
tion, the doer and his doctrine are to be accepted as of God, 
Archbishop French unhesitatingly replies : ' It cannot be so, 
for side by side with the miracles which serve for the further- 
ing of the kingdom of God runs another line of wonders, the 
counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most 
High.' (Dr. French's ' Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord.' ) 
Eighth ed., p. 22. 

"'This fact,' he says, 'that the kingdom of lies has 
its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is in itself 
sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed to 
absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the 
worker of them proclaims.' 

"This being the case, it is important to discover how 
miracles perform their function as the indispensible evidence 
for a Divine Revelation, for with this disability they do not 
seem to possess much potentiality. Archbishop French, 
then offers the following definition of the function of mira- 
cles : 'A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine or 
the divine mission of him that brings it to pass. That 
which alone it claims for him at the first is a right to bo 
listened to; it puts him in the alternative of being from 
heaven or from hell. The doctrine must first commend itself 
to the conscience as being good, and only then can the 
miracle seal it as divine.' But the first appeal is from the 
doctrine to the conscience, to the moral nature of man. 
Under certain circumstances, he maintains their evidence is 
utterly to be rejected. 'But the purpose of the miracle' he 


says, 'being as we have seen, to confirm tliat which is good, 
so, upon the other hand, wliere conscience and mind witness 
against the doctrine, not all the miracles in the world have 
a right to demand submission to the word which the^'^ seal. 
On the contrary, the great act of faith is to believe, against, 
and in despite of them all, in what God has revealed to, and 
implanted in the soul of the holy and the true; not to be- 
lieve another gospel, though an angel from heaven, or one 
transformed into such should bring it (Deut. 13 : 3 ; Gal. 
1:8); and instead of compelling assent, miracles are then 
rather warnings to us that we keep aloof, for they tell us 
that not merely lies are here, for to that the conscience bore 
witness already, but that he who utters them is more than 
a common deceiver, is eminently a liar and anti-Christ, a 
false prophet ; standing in more immediate connection than 
other deceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness, so 
that Satan has given him his power (Rev. 13: 2); is using 
him to be an especial organ of his, and to do a special work 
for him.' And he lays down the distinct principle that: 
'The miracle must witness for itself, and then, and then 
only, the first is capable of witnessing for the second.' 

" These* opinions are not peculiar to the Archbishop of 
Dubhn, but are generally held by divines, although Dr. 
French expresses them with unusual absence of reserve. Dr. 
Mozley emphatically aflSrms the same doctrine when ho 
says : ' A miracle cannot oblige us to accept any doctrine 
which is contrary to our moral nature or a fundamental 
principle of religion.' Dr. Mansel speaks to the same effect: 
' If a teacher claiming to work miracles proclaims doctrines 
contrary to previously established truths, whether to the 
conclusions of natural religion or to the teaching of a former 
revelation, such a contradiction is allowed even by the most 
zealous defenders of the evidential value of miracles, to 
invalidate the authority of the teacher. r>ut the right con- 
clusion from this admission is not that true miracles are 
invalid as evidences, but that the supposed miracles in this 
case are not true miracles at all ; that is, are not the effects 

- MIRACLES. 'jr3 

of divine power, but of human deception or of some otber 
agencj'.' A passapre ju?om a letter written by Dr. Arnold, 
which is quoted by Dr. French in support of his view^s, both 
illustrates the doctrine and the necessity which has led to its 
adoption. "You complain,' says Dr. Arnold, writing to Dr. 
Hawkins, 'of those persons who judge of a revelation not 
by its evidence, but by its substance. It has always seemed 
to me that its substance is a most essential part of its evi- 
dence; and that miracles wa'ought in favor of what was 
foolish or wicked would only prove Manicheism, We are so 
perfectly ignorant of the unseen w^orld, that the character 
of any supernatural power can only be judged by the moral 
charact'Cr of the statements which it sanctions. Thus onlv 
can we tell whether it be a revelation from God or from the 
Devil.' In another place Dr. Arnold declares: 'Miracles 
nmst not bo allowed to overrule the gospel ; for it is only 
through our belief in the gospel that we accord our belief in 

" It is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus 
established betw'een miracles and the doctrines in connection 
with which they are wrought destroys the evidential force of 
miracles, and that the first and final appeal is made to rea- 
son. The doctrine in fact proves the miracles instead of the 
miracle attesting the doctrine. Divines, of course, attempt 
to deny this, but no other deduction from their own state- 
ments is logically possible. Miracles according to scripture 
itself, are producible by various supernatural beings and 
may be satanic as well as divine : man on the other hand, is 
so ignorant of the unseen world that avowedly, he cannot, 
from the miracle itself, determine the agent by whom it was 
performed; the miracle, therefore, has no intrinsic eviden- 
tial value. How, then, according to divines, does it attain 
any potentiality? Only through a favorable decision on the 
part of reason on the 'moral nature of man' regarding the 
character of the doctrine. The result of the appeal to rea- 
son resjjecting the morality and credibility of the doctrine 
determines the evidential status of the miracle. The doc- 


trinb therefore, is the real criterion of the miracle which, 
withoiit it, is necessarily an object of doubt and suspicion. 
We have already casually referred to Dr. Newman's view 
of such a relation between miracle and doctrine, but may 
here more fully quote his suggestive remarks. 'Others by 
referring to the nature of the doctrine attested,' he says, 
*in order to determine the author of the miracle, have ex- 
posed themselves to the plausible charge of adducing, first 
the miracle to attest the divinity of the doctrine, and then 
the doctrine to prove the divinit}'' of the miracle.' This 
argument he characterizes as one of the 'dangerous modes' 
of removing a difficulty, although he does not himself point 
out a safer, and in a note, he adds : ' There is an appearance 
of doing honor to the Christian doctrines in represent- 
ing them as intrinsically credible, which leads many into 
supporting opinions which, carried to their full extent, 
supercede the need of miracles altogether. It must be rec- 
ollected, too, that they who are allowed to praise have the 
privilege of finding fault, and may reject, according to their 
a priori notions, as well as receive. Doubtless the divinity 
of a clearly immoral doctrine could not be evidenced by 
miracles; for our behef in the moral attributes of God, is 
much stronger than our conviction of the negative prop- 
osition, that none but he can interfere with the system of 
nature. But there is always the danger of extending this 
admission beyond its proper limits, of supposing ourselves 
judges of the tendency of doctrines ; and because, unassisted 
reason informs us what is moral and immoral in our own 
case, of attempting to decide on the abstract morality of 
actions. . . . These remarks are in nowise inconsistent 
with using (as was done in a former section) our actual 
knowledge of God's attributes, obtained from a survey of 
nature and human affairs, in determining the probability 
of certain professed miracles having proceeded from him. 
It is one thing to infer from the experience of life another to 
imagine the character of God from the gratuitous concep- 
tions of our own minds.' Although Dr. Newman apparently 

MmACLES. 45 

fails to perceive that he himself thus makes reason the crite- 
rion of miracles and therefore incurs the condemnation with 
which our quotation opens, the very indicision of his 
argument illustrates the dilemma in which divines are 
placed. Dr. Mozley, however, still more directly condemns 
the principle we are discussing, that the doctrine must be 
the criterion of the miracle, although he also, as we have 
seen elsewhere, substantially affirms it. He says: 'The po- 
sition that the revelation proves the miracle, and not the 
miracles the revelation, admits of a good qualified meaning ; 
but taken literally, it is a double offense against the rule, 
that things are properly proved by the proper proof of 
them ; for a supernatural fact is the proper proof of super- 
natural doctrine, while a supernatural doctrine on the other 
hand is certainly not a proper proof of a supernatural fact.' 
''This statement is obviously true, but it is equally un- 
deniable that, their origin being uncertain, miracles have no 
evidential force. How far then, we may inquire in order 
thoroughly to understand the position, can doctrines prove 
the reality of miracles or determine the agency by which 
they are performed ? In the case of moral truths within the 
limits of reason, it is evident that doctrines, which are in 
accordance with our idea of what is good and right do not 
require miraculous evidence at all. They can secure accept- 
ance by their 0"sVn merits alone. At the same time it is 
universally admitted that the truth or goodness of a doc- 
trine could not attest the divine origin of a miracle. Such 
truths, however, have no proper connection with revelation 
at all. ' These truths,' to quote the words of Bishop At- 
terbury, ' were of themselves sufficiently obvious and plain, 
and needed not a divine testimony to make them plainer. 
But the truths which are necessary in this manner to be 
attested, are those which are of positive institution; those 
which if God had not pleased to reveal them, human reason 
could not have discovered; and those, which, even now, they 
are revealed, human reason cannot fully account for, and 
perfectly comprehend,' How is it possible then that reason, 


or the ' moral nature of man ' can approve as good, or ap- 
preciate the fitness of, doctrines which in their very nature 
are beyond the criterion of reason. What reply, for instance, 
can reason give to any appeal to it regarding the doctrine 
of the trinity or of the incarnation? If doctrines, the truth 
and goodness of which are apparent, do not afford any evi- 
dence of divine revelation, how can doctrines which reason 
can neither discover nor comprehend attest the divine origin 
of rfliracles ? Dr. Mozley clearly recognizes that they cannot 
do so. 'The proof of a revelation,' he says, and we may 
add, the proof of a miracle— itself a species of revelation— 
* which is contained in the substance of a revelation has this 
inherent check or limit in it; namely: that it cannot reach 
to what is undiscoverable by reason.' 'Internal evidence is 
itself an appeal to reason, because at every step the test is 
our own appreciation of such and such an idea or doctrine, 
our own perception of its fitness ; but human reason cannot 
in the nature of the case prove that which, by the very 
hypotheses, lies beyond reason.' It naturally follows that 
no doctrine which lies beyond reason, and therefore requires 
the attestation of miracles, can possibly afford that in- 
dication of the source and reality of miracles which is 
necessary to endow them with evidential value, and the 
supernatural doctrine must, therefore, be rejected in the ab- 
sence of miraculous evidence of a decisive character. 

"Canon Mozley labors earnestly, but unsuccessfully, to 
restore to miracles as evidence some part of that potential- 
ity of which these unfortunate limitations have deprived 
them. 'Whilst on the one hand' he says, 'we must admit 
indeed an inherent modification in the function of a miracle 
as an instrument of proof,' he argues that this is only a 
limitation, and no disproof of it, and he contends that: 
'The evidence of miracles is not negatived because it has 
conditions.' His reasoning, however, is purely apologetic, 
and attempts by the unreal analogy of supposed limitations 
of natural principles and evidence to excuse the disqualify- 
ing limitations of the supernatural. He is quit^ conscious of 


the serious difficnlty of the position: 'The question' he 
says, 'may at first sigjjb create a dilemma.— If a miracle is 
nugatory on the side of one doctrine, what cogency has it 
on the side of another ? Is it legitimate to accept its evi- 
dence when we please and reject it when we please?' The 
only reply he seems able to give to these very pertinent 
questions is the remark which immediately follows them: 
* But in truth a miracle is never without an argumentative 
force, although that force may be counterbalanced.' In 
other words, a miracle is always an argument, although it 
is often a bad one. It is scarcely necessary to go to the 
supernatural for bad arguments. 

"It might naturally be expected that the miraculous 
evidence selected to accredit a divine revelation should pos- 
sess certain unique and marked characteristics. It must at 
least, be clearly distinctive of divine power and exclusively 
associated with divine truth. It is inconceivable that the 
Deity, deigning thus to attest the reality of a communica- 
tion from himself of truths beyond the criterion of reason, 
should not make the evidence simple and complete, because 
the doctrines proper to such a revelation, not being appre- 
ciable from internal evidence, it is obvious that the external 
testimony for them,— if it is to be of any use — must be un- 
mistakable and decisive. The evidence which is actually 
produced, however, so far from satisfying these legitimate 
anticipations, lacks every one of the qualifications which 
reason antecedently declares necessary. Miracles are not 
distinctive of divine power but are common to Satan, and 
they are admitted to be performed in support of falsehood 
as well as in the service of truth. They bear, indeed, so 
little upon them the impress of their origin and true char- 
acter, that they are dependent for their recognition upon 
our judgment of the very doctrines to attest which they are 
said to have been designed. 

"Even taking the representation of miracles, therefore, 
which divines themselves give, they are utterly incompetent 
to perform their contemplated functions. If they are super- 


human they are not supersatanic, and there is no sense in 
which they can be considered miraculously evidential of any- 
thing. To argue as theologians do, that the ambiguity of 
their testimony is intended as a trial of our faith is absurd, 
for reason being imable to judge of the nature either of super- 
natural fact or of supernatural doctrine it would be mere 
folly and injustice to subject to such a test beings avowedly 
incapable of sustaining it. Whilst it is absolutely necessary, 
then, that a divine revelation should be attested by mirac- 
ulous evidence to justify our believing it the testimony so 
called seems in all respects unworthy of the name, and pre- 
sents anomalies much more suggestive of human invention 
than divine orignality. We are, in fact, prepared by the 
scriptural accountof miracles to expect that further exam- 
ination W'ill supply an explanation of such phenomena which 
will wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. 

"We have seen that a divine revelation is such only by 
virtue of communicating to us something which we could 
not know without it, and which is in fact undiscoverable by 
human reason; and that miraculous evidence is absolutely 
requisite to establish its reality. It is admitted that no 
other testimony could justify our believing the specific reve- 
lation which we are considering, the very substance of which 
is supernatural and beyond the criterion of reason, and that 
its astounding announcements, if not demonstrated to be 
miraculous truths, must inevitably be pronounced 'the 
wildest delusions.' On examining the supposed miraculous 
(#idence, however, we find that not only is it upon general 
grounds antecedently incredible, but that the testimony by 
v/hich its realty is supported, so far from establishing the 
inferences drawn from the supposed supernatural phe- 
nomena, is totally insuflficient even to certify the actual 
occurrence of the events narrated. 

"Even if the reality of miracles could be substantiated, 
their value as evidence for the divine revelation is destroyed 
by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to 
one source, but that there are miracles satanic which are to 


be disbelieved, as well as divine and evidential ones to be 

believed. ^ 

"Similar miracles to those which are supposed to at- 
test it are reported long: antecedent to the promulgation 
of Christianity, and continued to be performed for centuries 
after it. 

"A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has flowed 

through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed 
through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread 
as it has entered days of enlightenment. 

"The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by 
the fact that their supposed occurrence has been confined to 
ages of ignorance and superstition, and that they are ab- 
solutely unknown in any time or place where science has 
provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and ascertain the 
nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. 

"There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in 
supernatural interference with nature. The assertion that 
spurious miracles have sprung up round a few instances oi 
genuine miraculous power has not a single valid argument 
to support it. 

" When we turn from more general arguments to exam- 
ine the documentary evidence for the reality of the supposed 
miraculous occurrences, and of the divine revelation which 
they accredit, we meet with the characteristics which might 
have been expected. We do not find any trace even of the 
existence of our gospels for a century and a half after the 
events they record. They are anonymous narratives, .^d 
there is no evidence of any value connecting these works 
with the writers to whom they are popularly attributed. 
The miraculous evidence upon which alone, it is admitted, 
we could be justified in believing its astounding doctrines 
being thus nugatory, the claims of Christianity to be con- 
sidered a divine revelation must necessarily be disallowed, 
and its supernatural elements, which are, in fact, the very 
substance of the system, inevitably sharing the same fate 
as the supposed miraculous evidence, must, therefore, be 



rejected as incredible and opposed to reason and complete 
induction." ("Supernatural Religion," p. 698.) 

'* A miracle as evidence can establish no fact, for the rea- 
son that the miracle does not exist. The miracle itself must 
be attested. As we have no evidence of miracles, we are not 
called on to believe them, but to believe the story which 
relates them. 'But the miracle is above and beyond rea- 
son.' To this we replj'': It is absurd to assume what is 
beyond reason, to account for what is opposed to reason." 

David Hume's Argument on Miracles. 

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as 
a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, 
the proof against a. miracle, from the very nature of the fact, 
is as entire as any argument from experience canpossibl}^ be 
imagined. Why is it more than probable that all men must 
die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; 
that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water ; un- 
less it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws 
of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, 
or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them ? Nothing is 
esteemed a miracle if it ever happen in the common course 
of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good 
health should die suddenly; because such a kind of death, 
though more unusual than any other, has yet been fre- 
quently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a 
dead man should come to life ; because that has never been 
observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be 
a uniform experience against every miraculous event, other- 
/wise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a 
uniform experience amounts to a proof there is here a direct 
and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the exist- 
ence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed or 
the miracle rendered credible but by an opposite proof 
which is superior. (2.) 

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim 
worthy of our attention), 'that no testimony is sutlicient 


to estciblisli a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a 
kind that its falsehood'Tvoulcl be more miraculous than the 
fact which it endeavors to establish ; and even in that case 
there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the supe- 
rior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of 
force which remains after deducting the inferior.' When any 
one tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I im- 
mediately consider with myself whether it be more probable 
that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that 
the h\ct which he relates should really have happened. I 
weigh the one miracle against the other, and according to 
the superiority which I discover I pronounce my decision, 
and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of 
his teetimonv would be more miraculous than the event 
which he relates, then, and not till then, can he pretend to 
command my belief or opinion. 

"In the foregoing reasoning wo have supposed that the 
testimony upon which a miracle is founded may possibly 
amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that 
testimony would be a real jirodigy ; but it is easy to show 
that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, 
and that there never was a miraculous event established on 
so full an evidence. 

"For, ^rst, there is not to be found, in all history, any 
miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such un- 
questioned good sense, education, a.nd learning, as to secure 
us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted 
integrity as to place them beyond all suspicion of any de- 
sign to deceive others ; of such credit and reputation in the 
eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose in case 
of their being detected in any falsehood ; and, at the same \ 
time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner, and 
in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detec- 
tion unavoidable; all which circumstances are requisite to 
give us a full assurance in the testimony of men. 

'^Secondly. We may observe in human nature a prin- 
ciple which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish 

52 ^rmACLES. 

extremely the assurance which we might, from Imman testi- 
mony, have in any kind of prodigy. The maxim by which 
we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings is, that 
the objects of which we have no experience resemble those of 
which we have; that what we have found to be most usual 
is always most profitable, and that where there is an oppo- 
sition of argument we ought to give the preference to such 
as are founded on the greatest number of past observa- 
tions; but though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily 
reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordi- 
nary degree, yet in advancing further the mind observes not 
always the same rule, but when anything is affirmed utterly 
absurd and miraculous it rather the more readily admits of 
such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance which 
ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise 
and wonder arising from miracles, being an agreeable emo- 
tion, gives a sensible tendencv toward the belief of those 
events from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that 
even those who can not enjoy this pleasure immediately, 
nor can believe those miraculous events of which they are 
informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second- 
hand or by rebound, and take pride and delight in exciting 
th& admiration of others. 

" With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of 
travelers received, their descriptions of sea and land mon- 
sters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men 
and uncouth manners! But if the spirit of religion joins 
itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common 
sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses 
all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an en- 
thusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality; he may 
know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it with 
the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting 
so holy a cause ; or even where this delusion has not place, 
vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operat^es on 
him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any 
other circumstances, and self-interest with equal force. His 

MIRACLES. ' - 53 

auditors may not have, and commonly have not, sufficient 
judgment to canvass his evidence; what judgment they 
liave, they renounce by principle, in these sublime and mys- 
terious subjects ; or if they were ever so willing to employ it, 
passion and a heated imagination disturb the regularity of 
its operations. Their credulity increases his impudence, and 
his impudence overpowers their credulity. 

" Eloquence, when at its highest pitch, leaves little room 
for reason or reflection, but, addressing itself entirely to the 
fancy or the affections, captivates the willing hearers and 
subdues their understanding. Happily, this pitch it seldom 
attains. But what a Tully or a Demosthenes could scarcely 
effect over a Roman or Athenian audience, every Capuchin, 
every itinerant or stationary teacher, can perform over the 
generality of mankind, and in a higher degree, by touching 
tJiich gross and vulgar passions. 

''The many instances of forged miracles and prophecies, 
and supernatural events, which in all ages have either been 
detected by contrary evidence or which detect themselves 
b}'' their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity 
of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvelous, and 
ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations 
of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even wdth 
regard to the most common and most credible events. For 
instance, there is no kind of report which rises so easily and 
spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provin- 
cial towns, as those concerning marriages : insomuch that 
tw.o young persons of equal condition never see each other 
twice but the whole neighborhood immediately join them 
together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interest- 
ing, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, 
spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known that no 
man of sense gives attention to these reports till he finds 
them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same 
passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of 
mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence 
and assurance, all religious miracles ? 


" Thirdly. It forms a strong presumption against all 
supernatural and miraculous relations that they are ob- 
served chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous 
nations ; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to 
any of them, that people \^'ill be found to have received them 
from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted 
them with that inviolable sanction and authority which 
always attend received opinions. When we peruse the first 
histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves 
transported into some new world, where the whole frame of 
nature is disjointed, and every element performs its opera- 
tions in a different manner from what it does at present. 
Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine, and death, are 
never the effect of those natural causes which we experience. 
Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgments, quite obscure the few 
natural events that are intermin2:led with them. But as the 
former grov/ thinner every page, in proportion as we ad- 
vance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn that there 
is nothing fhysterious or supernatural in the case, but that 
all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind toward 
the marvelous; and that though this inclination may at 
intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can 
never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature. 

"//; is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say upon the 
perusal of those wonderful historians, that such prodigious 
events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strango, 
I hope, that men should lie in all ages. You must surely 
have seen instances enough of that frailty. You have your- 
self heard many such marvelous relations started, which, 
being treated with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have 
at least been abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured 
that those renowned lies, which have spread and flourished 
to such a monstrous height, arose from like beginnings; but 
being sown in a more proper soil, shot up at last into prodi- 
gies almost equal to those which they relate. 

''It was a wise policy in that false pj-ophot Alexander, 

7 who, though now forgotten, was once so famous, to lay the 



first scene of his impostures in Paphlagonia, where, as 
Lueian tells us, the people were extremely ignorant and 
stupid, and ready to swallow even the grossest delusion. 
People at a distance w'ho are weak enough to think the mat- 
ter at all worth inquiry have no opportunity of receiving 
better information. The stories come magnified to them 
by a hundred circumstances. Fools are industrious in 
propagating the imposture; while the wise and learned 
are contented, in general, to deride its absurdity, without 
informing themselves of the particular facts by w^hich it 
may be distinctly refuted. And thus the imposture above 
mentioned was enabled to proceed, from his ignorant 
Paphlagonians, to the enlisting of votaries even among 
the Grecian philosophers and men of the most eminent 
rank and distinction in Rome; nay, could engage the at- 
tention of that sage emperor Marcus Aurelius, so far as to 
make him trust the success of a military expedition to his 
delusive prophecies. 

"The advantages are so great of starting an imposture 
among an ignorant people that, even though the delusion 
should be too gross to impose on the generality of them, 
w-hich, though seldom, is sometimes the case, it has a much 
better chance for succeeding in remote countries than if the 
first scene had been laid in a city renowned for arts and 
knowledge. The most ignorant and barbarous of these 
barbarians carry the report abroad. None of their coun- 
trymen have a large correspondence of sufficient credit and 
authority to contradict and beat down the delusion. Men's 
inclination to the marvelous has full opportunity to display 
itself. And tlius a story, which is universally .exploded in 
the place w'here it was first started, will pass for certain at 
a thousand miles distant. But had Alexander fixed his resi- 
dence at Athens, the philosophers of that renowned mart of 
learning w^ould have spread, throughout the whole Roman 
empire, their sense of the matter; wdiich, being supported by 
so great an authority, and displayed by all the force of rea- 
son and eloquence, would have entirely opened the eyes of 


manldnd. It is true Lucian, passing by chance througli 
Papblagonia, had an opportunity of performing this good 
office. But though much to be wished, it does not always 
happen that every Alexander meets with a Lucian ready to 
expose and detect his impostures. 

"I may add as a fourth reason which diminishes the 
authority of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, 
even those which have not been expressly detected, that 
is, not opposed by any infinite number of witnesses ; so that 
not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but 
the testimony destroys itself. To make this the better 
understood, let us consider that in matters of religion, what- 
ever is different is contrary ; and it is impossible that the 
religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China, 
should all of them be established on any solid founda- 
tion. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been 
wrought in any of those religions (and all of them abound 
in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular 
system to which it is attributed, so has it the same force, 
though more indirectly, to overthrow every otlier system. 
In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit 
of those miracles on which that system was established ; 
so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be 
regarded as contrary facts; and l^he evidences of these prod- 
igies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other. 
According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any 
miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have for our war- 
rant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians : and on 
the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus, 
Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors 
and witnesses— Grecian, Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who 
have related any miracle in their particular religion; I say 
we are to regard their testimony in the same light as if they 
had mentioned that Mahometan miracle, and had in express 
terms contradicted it, with the same certainty as they have 
for the miracle they relate. This argument may appear 
over subtile and refined ; but is not in reality different from 


the reasoning of a judge who supposes that the credit of 
two witnevsses, maintai^ling a crime against any one is de- 
stroyed by the testimon}^ of two others who affirm him to 
have been two hundred leagues distant at the same instant 
when the crime is said to have been committed. 
/ "One of the best-attested miracles in all profane his- 
'^tory is that which Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured 
a blind man in Alexandria by means of his spittle, and a 
lame man by the mere touch of his foot, in obedience to 
a vision of the god Serapis. who had enjoined them to have 
recourse to the emperor for these miraculous cures. The 
story may be seen in the works of that historian (Hist. lib. 
V. cap. 8. Suetonius gives nearly the same account in Yitia 
Vesp.), where every circumstance seems to add weight to 
the testimony, and might be displayed at large with all 
the force of argument and eloquence, if any one were now 
concerned to enforce the evidence of that exploded and idol- 
atrous superstition : The gravity, solidity, age, and probity 
of so great an emperor, who, through the whole course of 
his life conversed in a familiar manner with his friends and 
courtiers, and never affected those extraordinary airs of 
divinity assumed by Alexander and Demetrius. The histo- 
rian, a contempora?y writer, noted for candor and veracity, 
and, withal, the greatest and most penetrating genius per- 
haps of all antiquity, and so free from any tendency to 
credulity that he even lies under the contrary imputation 
of Atheism and profaneness. The persons from whose au- 
thority he related the miracle, of established character for 
■judgment and veracity, as we may well presume; eye wit- 
nesses of the fact, and confirming their testimony after the 
Flavian family was despoiled of the empire, and could no 
longer give any reward as the price of a lie. Utrumque, 
qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant, postquam nullum, 
mendacio pretium. To wh'ich if we add the public nature 
of the facts as related, it will appear that no evidence can 
well be supposed stronger for so gross and palpable a 


"There is also a memorable story related by Cardinal 
de UdliiZ, which may well deserve our consideration. AYhen 
that intriguing politician fled into Spain to avoid the per- 
secution of his enemies, he ]')assed through Saragossa, the 
capital of Arragon, where he was shown, in the cathedral, a 
man who had served seven years as a doorkeeper, and was 
\vell known to everybody in town that had ever paid his 
devotions at that church. He had been seen, for so long a 
time, wanting a leg; but recovered that limb by the rubbing 
of holy oil upon the stump; and the cardinal assures us that 
he saw him with two legs. This miracle was vouched by all 
the canons of the church ; and the whole company in town 
were appealed to for a confirmation of the fact; whom the 
cardinal found by their zealous devotion, to be thorough 
believers of the miracle. Here the relater was also con- 
temporary to the supposed prodigy, of an incredulous and 
libertine character, as well as of great genius, the miracle of 
so singular n natuTe as could scarcely admit of a counter- 
feit, and the witnesses very numerous, and all of them, in a 
manner spectators, of the fact to which they gave their 
testimony. And what add? mightily to the force of the 
evidence, and may double our surprise on this occasion, is 
that the cardi:ial himself, who relates the story, seems not 
to give any credit to it, and consequently can not be sus- 
pected of any concurrence in the holy fraud. He considered, 
justly, that it was not requsite, in order to reject a fact of 
this nature, to be able accurately to disprove the testimony, 
and to trace its falsehood through all the circumstances of 
knavery and credulity which produced it. He knew that as 
this was commonly altogether impossible at any small dis- 
tance of time and place, so was it extremely difficult, even 
where one was immediately present, by reason of the big- 
otry, ignorance, cunning, and roguery of a great part of 
mankind. He therefore concludeds lik(^ a just reasoner, that 
such an evidence carried falsehood upon the very iace of it, 
and that a miracle supported by any human testimony was 
more properly a sut)ject of derision than of argument. 


"There surely never was a greater number of miracles 
ascribed to one person "tlian those which were lately said 
to have been wrought in Finance upon the tomb of Abbe 
Paris, the famous Jansenist, with whose sanctity the 
people were so long deluded. The curing of the sick, gi\ing 
hearing to the deaf, and sight to the blind, were everywhere 
talked of as the usual effects of that holy sepulcher. But, 
what is more extraordinary, many of the miracles were 
immediately proved upon the spot, before judges of un- 
questioned integrity, attested by witnesses of credit and 
distinction, in a learned age, and on the most eminent thea- 
ter that is now in the world. Nor is this all: a relation of 
them was published and dispersed everywhere ; nor were the 
Jesuits, though a learned body, supported by the civil 
magistrate, and determined enemies to those opinions in 
whose favor the miracles were said to have been wrought, 
ever able distinctly to refute or detect them. (3.) Wliere 
shall we find such a number of circumstances agreeing to 
the corroboration of one fact? And what have we to 
oppose to such a cloud of witnesses but the absolute im- 
possibility or miraculous nature of the events which they 
relate? And this, surely, in the eyes of all reasonable peo- 
ple, will alone be regarded as a sufficient refutation. 

"Is the consecjuence just, because some human testi- 
mony has the utmost force and authority in some cases 
—when it relates the battle of Phillipi or Pharsalia, for in- 
stance — that therefore all kinds of testimony must, in all 
cases, have equal force and authority? Suppose that the 
Caesarean and Pompeian factions had, each of them, claimed 
the victory in these battles, and that the historians of each 
party had uniformly ascribed the advantage to their own 
sides; how could mankind, at this distance, have been 
able to determine between them? The contrariety is equally 
strong between the miracles related by Herodotus or 
Plutarch, and those delivered by Mariana, Bede, or any 
monkish historian. 


"The wise lend a very academic faith to every report 
v.hich favors the passion of the reporter, whether it magni- 
ties his country, his family, or himself, or in any other way 
strikes in with his natural inclinations and propensities. 
But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, 
a prophet, an embassador from heaven. Who would not 
encounter many dangers and diflSculties in order to obtain 
so sublime a character. Or if, by the help of vanity and a 
heated imagination, a man has first made a convert of him- 
self and entered seriously into the delusion, who ever scruples 
to make use of pious frauds in support of so holy and mer- 
itorious a cause. 

"The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest 
flame: because the materials are always prepared for it. 
The avidum genus auiicularum (Lucrtius)— the gazing 
populace receive greedily, without examination, whatever 
soothes superstition and promotes wonder. 

" How many stories of this nature have, in all ages, been 
detected and exploded in their infancy. How many more 
have been celebrated for a time and have afterward sunk 
into neglect and oblivion. Where such reports, therefore, 
fly about, the solution of the phenomenon is obvious ; and 
v/e Judge in conformity to regular experience and observa- 
tion when we account for it by the known and natural 
principles of credulity and delusion. And shall we, rather 
than have recourse to so natural a solution, allow of a mi- 
raculous violation of the most established laws of nature? 

"I need not mention the difficulty of detecting a false- 
hood in any private or even public history at the place 
where it is said to happen; much more when the scene is 
removed to ever so small a distance. Even a court of judi- 
cature, with all the authority, accuracy, and judgment 
which they can employ, find themselves often at a loss to 
distinguish between truth and falsehood in the most recent 
actions. But the matter never comes to any issue ii" trusted 
to the common method of altercation and debate and flying 

miracijEs. 61 

rumors, especially when men's passions have taken part on 
either side. ^ 

"In the infancy of new religions the wise and learned 
commonly esteem the matter too inconsiderable to deserve 
tbeir attention or regard. And when afterward they would 
willingly detect the cheat, in order to undeceive the deluded 
multitude, the season is now past, and the records and 
witnesses which might clear up the matter have perished 
beyond recovery. 

"No means of detection remain but those which must 
be drawn from the very testimony itself of the reporters; 
and these, though always sufficient with the judicious and 
knowing, are commonly too fine to fall under the compre- 
hension of the vulgar. 

"Upon the whole, then, it appears that no testimony 
for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a proba- 
bility, much less to a proof; and that even supposing it 
amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof, 
derived from the very nature of the fact which it would 
endeavor to establish. It is experience only which gives 
authority to human testimony; and it is the same experi- 
ence which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, 
these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing 
to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an 
opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assur- 
ance which arises from the remainder. But according to the 
principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all 
popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and 
'therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human 
testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and 
make it a just foundation for any such system of religion. 

"I beg the limitations here made may be remarked when 
I say that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the 
foundation of a system of religion. For I own that, other- 
wise, there may possibly be miracles or violations of the 
usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof 
from human testimony; though perhaps it will be impossi- 


ble to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, 
suppose all authors, in all languages, agree that from the 
first of January, 1600, there was a total darkness over the 
whole earth for eight days; suppose that the tradition of 
this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among 
the people; that all travelers who return from foreign coun- 
tries bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the 
least variation or contradiction— it is evident that our pres- 
ent philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to 
receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes 
whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and 
dissolution of nature is an event rendered probable by so 
many analogies, that any phenomenon which seems to have 
a ten den C3^ toward that catastrophe comes within the reach 
of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive 
and uniform. 

" But suppose that all the historians who England treat 
of should agree that on the first day of January, 1600, 
Queen Elizabeth died ; that both before and after her death 
she was seen by her physicians and the whole court, as is 
usual with persons of her rank; that her successor was 
acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament ; and that 
after being interred a month she again appeared, resumed 
the throne, and governed England for three years— I must 
confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so 
many odd circumstances, but should not have the least 
inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not 
doubt of her pretended death, and of those other pubhc cir- 
cumstances that followed it; I should only assert it to have 
been pretended, and that it neither was nor possibly could 
be real. You would in vain object to me the diflSculty, and 
almost impossibility, of deceiving the world in an affair of 
such consequence. The wisdom and solid judgment of that 
renowned queen, with the little or no advantage she could 
reap from so poor an artifice— all this might astonish me; 
but T would still reply that the knavery and folly of men 
are such common phenomena, that I should rather !)elieve 


the most extraordinary events to arise from their concur- 
rence than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of 
nature. ^ 

"But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system 
of religion, men in all ages have been so much imposed on 
by ridiculous stories of that kind that this very circum- 
stance would be a full proof of a cheat, and sufficient with 
all men of sense not only to make them reject the fact, but 
even reject it without further examination. Though the be- 
ing to whom the miracle is ascribed be in this case Almighty, 
it does not upon that account become a whit more probable, 
since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions 
of such a being otherwise than from the experience which we 
have of his productions in the usual course of nature. This 
still reduces us to past observation, and obliges us to com- 
pare the instances of the violation of truth in the testimony 
of men with those of the violation of the laws of nature by 
miracles, in order to judge which of them is most likel.y and 
probable. As the violations of truth are more common in 
the testimony concerning religious miracles than in that con- 
cerning any other matter of fact, this must diminish very 
much the authority of the former testimony, and make us 
form a general resolution never to lend any attention to it, 
with whatever specious pretense it may be covered. 

" Lord Bacon seems to have embraced the same princi- 
ples of reasoning. ' We ought,' says he, 'to make a collection 
or particular history of all monsters and prodigious births 
or productions, and, in a word, of everything new, rare, and 
extraordinary in nature. But this must be done with the 
most severe scrutiny, lest we depart from truth. Above all, 
every relation must be considered as suspicious which de- 
pends in any degree upon religion, as the prodigies of Livy: 
and, no less so, every thing that is to be found in the writers 
of natural magic or alchemy, or such authors who seem, all 
of them, to have an unconquerable appetite for falsehood 
and fable.' (Nov. Org. lib. 2, aph. 9.) 


"I am the better pleased with the method of reasoning 
hcn^ deUvered, as I think it may serve to confound those 
dangerous friends or disguised enemies to the Christian re- 
ligion who have undertaken to defend it by the principles of 
human reason. Our most holy religion is founded on faith, 
not on reason ; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put 
it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure. To 
make this more evident, let us examine those miracles re- 
lated in scripture; and, not to lose ourselves in too wide a 
field, let us confine ourselves to such as we find in the Penta- 
teuch, which we shall examine according to the principles of 
these pretended Christians, not as the word or testimony of 
God himself, but as the production of a mere human writer 
and historian. Here, then, we are first to consider a book, 
presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, writ- 
t-en in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in 
all probability long after the facts which it relates, corrob- 
orated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those 
fabulous accounts which every nation gives of its origin. 
Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and mir- 
acles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of 
human nature entirely different from the present : of our fall 
from that state; of the age of man extended to near a thou- 
sand years; of the destruction of the world by a deluge; of 
the arbitrary choice of one people as the favorites of heaven, 
and that people the countrymen of the author; of their 
deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing 
imaginable: I desire anyone to lay his hand upon his heart, 
and, after a serious consideration, declare whether he thinks 
that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a tes- 
timony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous tlian 
all the miracles it relates ; which is, however, necessary to 
make it be received according to the measures of probabil- 
ity above established. 

*' What we have said of miracles may be applied, without 
any variation, to prophecies; and, indeed, all prophecies are 
real- miracles, and as such oul^ can be admitted as proofs of 


any revelation. If it did not exceed the enpacity of hnnian 
Qatnre to foretell future events, it would be absurd to em- 
oloy any prophecy as an argument for a divine mission or 
a-uthority from heaven; so that upon the whole we may 
conclude that the Christian religion not only was at first 
attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be be- 
lieved by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason 
is insuflScient to convince us of its veracity; and whoever is 
moved by faith to assent to it is conscious of a continued 
miracle in his own person which subverts all the principles 
of his understanding, and gives him a determination to be- 
lieve what is most contrary to custom and experience." 

"For hundreds of years, miracles were about the only 
things that happened. They were wrought by thousands 
of Christians, and testified to by millions. The saints and 
martyrs, the best and greatest, were the witnesses and work- 
ers of wonders. Even heretics, with the assistance of the 
Devil, could suspend the 'law^s of nature.' Must we beheve 
these wonderful accounts because they were written by 
'good men,' by Christians, 'who made their statements in 
the presence and expectation of death ? ' The truth is that 
these 'good men' were mistaken. They expected the mi- 
raculous. They breathed the air of the marvelous. They 
fed their minds on prodigies, and their imaginations feasted 
on effects without causes. They were incapable of investi- 
gating. Doubts were regarded as 'rude disturbers of the 
congregation.' Credulity and sanctity walked hand in hand. 
Reason was danger. Belief was safety. As the philosophy 
-of the ancients was rendered almost worthless bv the ere- 
dulity of the common people, so the proverbs of Christ, his 
religion of forgiveness, his creed of kindness, were lost on the 
mist of miracle and the darkness of superstition." (Inger- 
Boll's Reply to Black.) 

"Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. 
There is but one way to explain anything, and that is to 
account for it by natural agencies. The moment you ex- 
plain a miracle it disappears. You should depend not upon 



explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven from 
the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. 
You should reply that all miracles are unreasonable. Nei- 
ther should you be in the least disheartened if it is shown to 
bo impossible. The possible is not miraculous. You should 
take the ground that if miracles were reasonable, and pos- 
sible, there would be no reward for beheving them. The 
Christian has the goodness to believe, while the sinner asks 
for e\idence. It is enough for God to work miracles with- 
out being called upon to substantiate them for the benefit 
of unbelievers." (Ingersoll's "Mistakes of Moses," p. 146.) 

"So when we are told that wine was made out of water, 
and bread and fish out of notliing in large quantities, we 
know that we are Ustening to statements that simply go 
out of the field of credible testimony into the realm of su- 
preme credulity. Such assertions requu'e you to believe not 
only what you have not seen, but what all reason and expe- 
rience tell you, you never can see. They ask you not only 
to believe in a past event, but in a past event outside of 
all reason, unsupported by nature, opposed to all natural 
laws, beneath the realm of reason, out of the light of expe- 
rience, under the shadow of superstition. The great electric 
light of the intellect is turned off at the church door." 
(Helen H. Gardener. "Men, Women, and Gods." 

Some Extra Miracles, 

A snake talks, reasons, and has more knowledge than 
Adam and Eve. See third chapter of Genesis. 

God talks to the snake in the same chapter. On another 
occasion God spoke to a fish. "And the Lord spake unto 
the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon dry land." (Jo- 
nah 2: 10.) 

Balaam's ass seems to have been able to talk, and to 
see angels. "And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, 
and she said unto Balaam, What have 1 done unto thee, 
that thou hast smitten me these tlu-ee times?" (Numbers 
22: 28.) 


The Great Qxiail Story. 

''And there went ^orth a wind from the Lord, and 
brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the 
camp, as it were a day's journey on this side (thirty-three 
and one-fifth miles), and as it were a day's journey (thirty- 
three and one-fifth miles) on the other side, round about the 
camp and as it were two cubits (three feet and foui^ inches) 
higli upon the face of the earth. And while the flesh was yet 
between their teeth, ere it was chewed the wrath of the Lord 
was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the 
people with a very great plague." (Numbers 11 : 31, 33.) 
And the people quailed before the Lord; that is they quailed 
outwardly, but not inwardly. 
A Suit of Clothes Lasting Forty Years, and even then Not Old. 

"Yea fortv years didst thou sustain them in the wilder- 
ness, so that they lacked nothing ; their clothes waxed not 
old, and their feet swelled not." (Neh. 9 : 21.) 

Lot's Wife turned into a Pillar of Salt. 

The Boston Transcript knows of an erudite clergyman 
who spoke of the unfortunate woman of Sodom as "Lot's 
lady who was transformed into a monolith of chloride of 
Cattle which were Killed Several Times After they were Dead. 

"And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all 
the cattle of Egypt died, but of the cattle of the children of 
Israel died not one." (Ex. 9:6.) 

This is the first time they were killed, so far as we know 
of. The immediate cause of their taking off is ascribed to 
"Murrain." In the twenty-fifth verse of the same chapter 
it is fully implied that they were killed again: "And the 
hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in 
the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every 
herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field." Now it 
is fair to infer that a hail which " brake every tree of the 


field" was destinictive enough to kill animals. This makes 
the second time they were killed. 

In the twelfth chapter of Exodus and twenty-ninth 
verse we read that some of the same cattle were killed 
again, making three times that they died: "And it came 
to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first 
born of the land of Egypt, from tho first born of Pharaoh 
that sat upon the throne unto the first born of the captive 
in the dungeon ; and the first born of cattle." After these 
repeated deaths of the cattle, we find Pharaoh and his 
horsemen in full pursuit of the fleeing Hebrews, and Pha- 
raoh and his horsemen and horses, were drowned in the sea. 
Of course it is difiicult for one who is carnally minded, to 
understand how cattle can be killed so many times. Possi- 
bly the "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Dumb 
Animals" might have done good service had it been in full 
working order in those days. 

People Get Up in the raorning Dead. 

"And when they arose, behold they were all d3ad 
corpses." (Isaiah 37: 36.) 

Elisha Heturns to Life. 

"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, 
behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man 
unto the sepulcher of Elisha : and when the man (the corpse) 
was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, 
and stood up on his feet." (2 Kings 13 : 21.) 

It would have been a great consolation to us, if the 
vvriter had only added a few lines more, and told us what 
Elisha did after he stood up on his feet. Of course if he 
Btood up, he could not stand on any one else's feet than his 
(nvn, but did he climb out of the sepulcher and go on his way 
rejoicing? Execrable historian to leave us in the dark when 
we so greatly need light! We fear the writer of Matthew 
had this story in his mind, when speaking of the earth- 
(juake at the crucifixion of Christ, lie says, "And the 
^ravoM were opened; and many bodies of the saints wliich 


sle]jt, arose, and came out of the graves after bis resurrec- 
tion, and went into tjje holy city, and appeared unto 
many."— "Came out of the graves after his resurrection^^ ] 
hut they arose at the time of the earthquake, and the res- 
urrection did not take place until the third day afterward. 
What were they doing all this time? Standing up in their 
graves, dressed in their funeral wardrobe? If they appeared 
uuto many there is no mention of the fact made by either 
.hnv or Gentile. 


Elijah Went to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire. 

"And it came to pass as they still went on, and talked, 
that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of 
fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by 
a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2 : 11.) 

The writer of Luke, has given us almost a literal copy 
of this story in telling of Jesus' ascent to heaven : 

"And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted 
up his hands, and blessed them ; and it came to pass while 
he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up 
into heaven." (Luke 24: 50,51.) 

"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was 
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." 
(Mark 16: 19.) 

To these writers heaven was only a few miles away. 
They had not the faintest conception of the distance of the 
nearest fixed star : 

"And he (Jacob) dreamed and behold a ladder set up on 
the earth and the top of it reached to heaven : and behold 
the angels of God ascending and descending on it." (Gen. 
28: 12.) 

The tower of Babel was another method of reacliing 
heaven. The writers of the gospels have no better ideas 
than the ancient Jews had. 


I give below, a few out of many passages which show 
that the writers of the New Testament regarded heaven as 
only a few miles away. 

"And, lo, the heavens were opened." (Mat. 3 : 16. ) 

" He saw the heavens opened." (Mark 1 : 10.) 

"There came a voice from heaven saying." (Mark 
1: 11.) 

"And lo, a voice from heaven saying." (Mat. 3: 17.) 

"For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and 
came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on 
it." (Mat. 28: 2.) 

"And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven." 
(Luke 22: 43.) 

"Then came there a voice from heaven saying.'' (John 
12: 28.) 

"I heard another voice from heaven saying." (John 
18: 4.) 

All these and many more passages which might be cited 
go to show that these writers supposed heaven to be but a 
short distance away. There was a constant and familiar 
intercourse between the gods above and men below. 

The Christian idea of heaven is but another form of the 
Greek notion of Mt. Olympus— it is not only borrowed, but 
vague and mythical in the extreme— it is childish and has 
much of the flavor of Santa Claus stories. 


The great flood in which the waters piled up at the rate 
of about eight hundred feet per day for forty days was nu- 
other of the extraordinary occurrences of Bible record. In 
these degenerate times a downfall of throi^ inches of rain, 
for one day is usually sufficient to satisfy everybody. I'»ut 
1 liink of about eight hundred feet per day ! 

A river turned into blood after it had just be(Mi trans- 
formed into blood: "And Moses and Aaron did so, as the 
Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the 
waters that were in the river, in the si«2:ht of IMiaraoli, and 


in sight of his servants, and all the waters that were in the 

river were turned into blood. And tlK' fish that was in the 

river died; and the river ^tank, and the Egyptians could 

not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood 

throughout all the land of Egypt. And the magicians of 

Egypt did so with their enchantments." (Ex. 7: 20, 21, 

22.) The magicians turned a river of blood into blood, and 

killed dead fish, eh ? 

The Ass and the Calf. 

"And he took the (golden) calf which they had made, 
and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and 
strewed it upon the w^aters, and made the children of Israel 
drink of it." (Ex. 32: 20.) 

But as gold does not burn in a fire, nor can it be ground 
to powder, or strewed upon the waters, or drunk, we are 
forced to conclude that the author of this little golden calf 
story, must have been an ass. 


The Genealogy of Jesus. • 

"Matthew (1: 17) says, 'So all the generations from 
Abraham to David are fourteen generations ; and from the 
carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations ; and 
from the carrying away into Babylofi unto Christ are four- 
teen generations.' 

"Luke (3: 23-38) relates Christ's genealogy, and gives 
forty-three generations between David and Christ, these two 
persons being included. Here then in the genealogy of the 
same person is an utterly irreconcilable discrepancy of fifteen 
generations. This is truly a bad beginning. Although these 
^.wo accounts may both be false they cannot possibly both 
be true. If 'all the generations,' from David to Jesus, were 
only 'twenty -eight,' as given by Matthew, there could not 
possibly have been at the same time, ' forty -three ' of them 
as given by Luke. The case becomes much worse, liovvever, 
when we discover that, with the exception of Jesus, Josejih, 
and David, tli?se two authors give entirely different sets of 
of men. Since it is utterly impossible for the same individual 
to have descended through both of these lines of ancestors, 
it is equally impossible for both of these accounts to bo 
true." (J. R. Kelso's " Bible Analyzed." ) 

"On the first glance these genealogies, as given by Mat- 
thew and Luke, are so evidently different that it has b(^en 
the ordinary, if not invariable practice of Christian harmon- 
ists and commentators to represent the former Evangehst 
as recording the descent of Joseph, while the latter Evan- 


gelist is said to have^iven the pedigree of Mary. AVe will 
say nothing of the plausibility of this explanation, which 
acknowledges the genealogies to be wholly different, and 
supposes they belong to two persons. Our questions must 
rather effect the truthfulness of this mode of explaining 
away the difficulty. Let the reader bear in mind how Mat- 
thew states that 'Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,' 
and how Luke's words are 'Joseph which was the son of 
Ileli,' and then let the reader say whether it is truthful to 
allege that these different genealogies belong to different in- 
dividuals. Is it not plain that each of them professes to 
trace the lineal descent of one and the same man, Joseph ? 
If we are still to be told that when Matthew professes to 
give the descent of Joseph, he is to be understood as giving 
the descent of Mary, then we simply rejoin that such an ex- 
planation is nothing more nor less than an abandonment 
of the idea of inspirational infallibility; for it represents 
the Bible as saying one thing and meaning another." 
(McNaught, "Doctrine of Inspiration." ) 

■When was Jesus Born? 

As to the time when Jesus was born, we have no positive 
information. Matthew says he was born in Herod's time, 
and that Herod caused all the little children to be killed on 
account of him. Luke says Jesus was born in the time of 
Cyrenius, when Augustus Caesar gave orders that all the 
people should be taxed. Now, Cyrenius succeeded Archelaiis, 
who reio:ned ten vears after the death of Herod. Here is a 
contradiction that cannot be explained away. The exact 
day of Herod's death can be almost arrived at, as shown by 
Josephus, who says that on the night preceding the death 
of Herod there was an eclipse of the moon. In calculating 
back to the time of this eclipse, it is found to have occurred 
on the fourth of March, four years before Christ; another 
perplexing discrepancy. Matthew says he was born in the 
days of Herod, and John says it was in the days of Cyre- 


nius, fourteen years afterward. Again, Mark and Luke say 
Jesus began to be thirty years of age in the fifteenth year <»f 
the reign of Tiberius, the very day of whose accession in 
known; and by counting back, we find that Jesu.s laust 
have been born four years before the Christian era, whi(*h 
disagrees entirely with the statement of Matthew. 

Professor John Fiske remarks tliat while the Jesus of 
the dogma is the best known, the Jesus of history is the 
least known of all the eminent names in history. " Persons 
who had given much attention to the subject affirmed that 
there were not less than one hundred and thirty-two difft^r- 
ent opinions as to the year in which the Messiah appeared." 
("Conflict Between Religion and Science,*' p. 184.) 

Dr. Adam Clarke, on observations of Luke 2: 8, in his 
Commentary says: "The nativity of Jesus in December 
should be given up. The Egyptians placed it in Januar3''; 
Wa«:enseil in Februarv; Bochart in March. Some men- 
tioned by Clemens Alexandrine in April; others in May. 
Epiphanius speaks of some who placed it in June, and oth- 
ers supposed it to have been in July. Wagenseil, who was 
not sure of February, fixed it as probably in August ; Light- 
foot on the fifteenth of September. But the Latin church 
[Catholic], supreme in power and infallible in judgment, 
placed it on the twenty-fifth of December, the very day on 
which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their god- 
dess, Bruma. Pope Julius I. (in the fourth century) made 
the first alteration, and it appears to have been done for 
this reason." The Christians often aim to make an argu- 
ment that the chronology of the Christian era is established 
by the confirmation that is given by the years being num- 
bered from the supposed biilh of Jesus, but it is no proof 
at all. The idea of counting the years from the advent of 
Jesus was not thought of for several centuries after the 
time when the vague legends said he was supposed to have 
lived. The plan of numbering the years from that apocry- 
phal event was first inv<;nted by a. monk, Dionysius Exiguus, 
about 530 after Christ. It was introduced into Italy not 


long afterward, and was propagated by Bede, who died in 
735. It was ordered to be used by the bishops in the Council 
uf Chalcedon in 816, but it was not generally employed for 
several centuries afterward. It was not legalized until the 
year 1000. Charles III. of Germany was the first sovereign 
who added "In the year of our Lord" to his reign, in 879. 
(Sec Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, and Encyclopedia of 

Now, in recapitulation, let us see how much, by the com- 
mon sense method of interpreting the gospels, we have been 
forced to reject as incredible. 

First, we have seen that Joseph's dream concerning 
the immaculate conception was, after all, only a dream, 
and that wonderful dreams are not uncommon; Samson's 
mother having had one which is so identical with Joseph's, 
that we are persuaded that the dream of the latter is but 
a copy of the dream of the former ; that almost all men of 
distinction in ancient times were reported to have had won- 
derful prodigies attending their conception and birth, — and 
that there is no evidence in the gospels of the resurrection 
of Jesus. Paul saw him in a vision, that is, in his mind's 
eye, but does not claim to have seen him in the flesh. And 
of the ascension, it is a self-evident fiction. 

The miracles are not onlv incredible from their beini:: 
incompatible with and contrary to human experience, but 
the manner in which they are related proves that they never 
were performed. (See "Miracles.") And concerning the 
moral teachings of Jesus we find great imperfection. He 
did not come to save all men, but only the lost sheep of 
the house of Israel; he taught that the end of the world 
was nigh at hand, when a great physical revolution should 
usher in the kingdom of heaven, but it did not come. We 
find also that Jesus did not respect the rights of property ; 
that he despised this world; that he condemned the rich 
because they were rich, and made great promises to the 
poor because they were poor ; that he professed to pardon 
sin, and on one occasion pardoned a person's sins for wash- 


ing his feet; that he exhibited an imperfect sense of justice 
in a great many instances; and, lastly, we find that there is 
no history of him excepting the gospels, and in these there 
is no unquestionable record of the time when or the place 
where he was born. We are forced to conclude that if ever 
there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, we have no 
trustworthy sources of positive knowledge concerning him. 

Christianity Rests Upon a Dream. 

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When 
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they 
came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy 
Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man and 
not willing to make her a publric example, was minded to 
put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, 
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, 
saying, Joseph thou son of David, fear not to take unto 
thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of 
the Holy Ghost." (Mat. 1 : 18-20.) 

''Before they came together, she was found to be with 
child of the Holy Ghost." 

1. How could any one but Mary say who the father of 
the child was ? 

2. If the conception was miraculous then neither Mary 
nor any one else could know ought of the paternity of the 

3. Mary says nothing about the overshadowing of the 
Holy Ghost. 

4. Who found out that Joseph had had such a dream ? 

5. Was it duly reported and verified then and there? 

6. The book that relates the dream is anonymous and 
does not appear in history until A. D. 180-182. 

7. The writers of the other three gospels know nothing 
of this dream. 

8. There is no evidence that the writer of the first {jos- 
pel ever personally knew Mary. 


9. Luke (1 : 30) says that it was to Mary that the an- 
gel of the Lord appeawd. 

10. Only a dream! The corner-stone of Christianity 
rests upon a dream! Take away this dream and Chris- 
tianity has nothing left. 


The moral teachings of the Bible are not original. Buck 
of the pyramids in pre-historic times mothers taught their 
children to be kind to each other. Not from heaven but out 
of the human heart came the golden rule. A mother's love 
was sufficient to reveal this best rule of life. Human in- 
spiration is the only inspiration needed to call forth the 
expression— " Do unto others as ye would have them do 
unto you," 

Sixty years before the Christian era, Hellel, a Jewish 
rabbi wrote: "Do not do to others, what you would not 
like others to do to you." 

Two hundred and eighty years before Christ, Epicurus 
said : " It is more blessed to give than to receive." 

Three hundred and fifty years before Christ, Socrates 
said : "Act toward others as you desire them to act toward 

Three hundred and seventy years before Christ, Aristip- 
pus said: " Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make 
you as anxious for another's welfare as your own." 

Three hundred and eighty-five years before Chri8t, Aris- 
totle wrote: "We should conduct ourselves toward others, 
as we would have them act toward us." 

Four hundred j^ears before Christ, Sextus said : "What 
you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to 

Four hundred and twenty years before Christ, Plato 
wrote: "May I do to others as I would have them do to 

Five hundred years before Christ, Confucius taught: 
^'Do unto another what you would have him do to you, 


and do not to another what you would not have him do 
unto you: it is the foundation principle of all the rest.'* 
(24th Maxim Confucius.) Jesus concludes by saying, "For 
this is the law and the prophets," and Confucius closes his 
rule by observing, "Thou only needst this law alone; it is 
the foundation and principle of all the rest." 

And it should not be overlooked that Jesus, in thus 
attributing the golden rule to " the law and the prophets," 
disclaims its authorship. Confucius does the same. 

Six hundred years before Christ, Thales said: "Avoid 
doing what you would blame others for doing." 

Six hundred and fifty years before Christ, Pittacus 
taught: "Do not do to your neighbor what you would 
take ill from him." 

"That the system of morals propounded in the New 
Testament contains no maxim which had not been pre- 
viously enunciated, and that some of the most beautiful 
passages in the apostolic writings are quotations from Pa- 
gan authors, are well known to every scholar; and so far 
from supplying, as some suppose, an objection against 
Christianity, it is a strong recommendation of it, as in- 
dicating the intimate relation between the doctrines of 
Christ and the moral sympathies of mankind in different 
ages. But to assert that Christianity communicated to 
man moral truths previously unknown, argues on the part 
of the assertor, either gross ignorance or else wilful fraud." 
(Buckle, "History of Civilization," vol. 1, p. 129.) 

"Did space admit, I could cite numerous passages from 
Enoch in close correspondence with the New Testament 
scripture, in many cases almost word for word. In that 
book, as in the Talmud, and as was held by the Jews in 
general (saving the Sadducees), may be found the exact doc- 
trines taught by Jesus rela.tive to the Son of Man coming 
in the clouds of heaven, the i-esurrection of the dead, the 
day of judf^ment, the ])unishniont of the wicked in everlast- 
ing fire, and the reward of the righteous in heaven. The 
eschatology of Jesus is borrowed in toto from that preva- 


lent in Judea during his lifetime. Not one single new idea 
respecting the 'fourfin^i things/ death, judgment, heaven, 
and hell, can be found in Jesus' teachings as embodied \u 
the gospels." — Wm. Emmette Coleman. 

Jesus an Eissene. 

"Of the resemblance between the Essenes and the fol- 
lowers of (Jhrist in their principles and practices, I will let a 
Christian writer speak — Christian D. Ginsburg, LL.D., who 
is a leading contributor to Alexander's new edition of Kit- 
to's Cyclopedia, the most orthodox of the chief EngUsh 
Bible dictionaries. I will read a few extracts from an essay 
entitled, 'The Essenes Their History and Doctrines.' Dr. 
Ginsburg says : '' The identity of many of the precepts and 
practices of Essenism and Christianity is unquestionable. 
Essenism urged on its disciples to seek first the kingdom of 
God and his righteousness ; so did Christ. (Mat. 6 : 33, and 
Luke 12 : 31.) The Essenes forbade the laying up of treas- 
ures upon earth; so did Christ. (Mat. 6: 19, 21.) The 
Essenes demanded of those who wished to join them, to 
sell all their possessions, and to divide it among the poor 
brethren; so Christ. (Mat. 19: 21, and Luke 12: 33.) The 
Essenes had all things in common, and appointed one oi the 
brethren as steward to manage the common bag; so the 
primitive Christians. (Acts 2 : 44, 45 ; 4 : 32, 34, and John 
12: 6; 13: 29.) Essenism regarded all its members on the 
same level, forbidding the exercise of authority of one over 
the other, and enjoining mutual service; so Christ. (Mat. 
-20: 25-28, and Mark 9: 35, 37; 10: 42, 45.) Essenism 
commanded its disciples to call no man master upon the 
eartli; so Christ. (Mat. 23: 8, 9.) Essenism laid the great- 
est stress on being meek and lowly in spirit; so Christ. 
(Mat. 5: 5,29.) 

* Christ commended the poor in spirit, those who hunger 
after righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart and the 
peacemakers; so the Essenes. . . . Christ combined the 
healing of the body with that of the soul; so the Essenes. 


Like the Essenes, Christ declared that the power to cast out 
evil spirits, to perform miraculous cures, etc., should be pos- 
sessed by his disciples as signs of their belief. (Mark 16 : 17 ; 
comp. also Mat. 10: 8, and Luke 9: 1, 2; 10: 9.) Like the 
Essenes, Christ commanded his disciples not to swear at aH, 
but to say yea, yea, and nay, nay. The manner in which 
Christ directed his disciples to go on their journey (Mat. 10 : 
9, 10) is the same which the Essenes adopted when they 
started on a mission of mercy. The Essenes, though repudi- 
ating offensive war, yet took weapons with them when they 
went on a perilous journey: Christ enjoined his disciples to 
do the same thing. (Luke 22: 36.) Christ commended that 
elevated spiritual life, which enables a man to abstain from 
marriage for the kingdom of heaven's sake, and which can- 
not be attained by all men save those to whom itt is given 
(Mat. 19 : 10-12; comp. also ICor. 8); so the Essenes, who, 
as a body, in waiting for the kingdom of heaven, abstained 
from connubial intercourse. The Essenes did not offer ani- 
mal sacrifices, but strove to present their bodies a living 
sacrifice, holy and acceptable, unto God, which they re- 
garded as a reasonable service; the apostle Paul exhorts 
the Romans to do the same. (Rom. 12: 1.) It was the 
great aim of the Essenes to live such a life of purity and 
holiness as to be the temples of the holy spirit and to be 
able to prophesy; the apostle Paul urges the Corinthians 
to covet to prophesy. (1 Cor. 14 : 1, 39.) When Christ pro- 
nounced John to be Elias (Mat. 11: 14), he declared that 
the Baptist had already attained to that spirit and power 
v/hich the Essenes strove to obtain in their highest stage of 
purity. It wiH therefore hardly be doubted that our Savior 
himself belonged to this holy brotherhood. This will espe- 
cially be apparent when we remember that the whole Jewisli 
community, at the advent of (Christ, was divided into three 
parties, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes, and 
that every Jew had to belong to one of these sects. Jesus, 
who in all things conformed to Jewish law, who was holy, 
harmless, uudefiled, and separate from sinners, would nat- 


urally associate himsel^with that order of Judaism which 
was most congenial to his holy nature. Moreover, the fact 
that Christ, with the exception of once, was not heard of in 
public till his thirtieth year, implying that he lived in seclu- 
sion with this fraternity, and that though he frequently 
rebuked the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, he never de- 
nounced the Essenes, strongly confirms this conclusion. . . 
The accounts given by Josephus first mentioned their exist- 
ence in the days of Jonathan the Maccabaean, B.C. 166; 
and they most unquestionably show that the Essenes ex- 
isted at least two centuries before the Christian era, and 
that they at first lived among the Jewish community at 
large. Their residence at Jerusalem is also evident from the 
fact that there was a gate named after them. When they 
ultimately withdrew themselves from the rest of the Jewish 
nation, the majority of them settled on the northwest shore 
of the Dead Sea, suflBciently distant to escape its noxious 
exhalations, and the rest lived in scattered communities 
throughout Palestine and Syria. Both Philo and Josephus 
estimated them to be above four thousand in number. This 
must have been exclusive of women and children. We hear 
very little of them after this period (that is, 40 A.D.); and 
there can hardly be any doubt that, owing to the great sim- 
ilarity which existed between their precepts and practices, 
and those of the primitive Christians, the Essenes, as a body, 
must have embraced Christianity.' "—Underwood, in Under- 
wood-Marples Debate. 

Jesus' Teachings Not up to the Moral Standard of To-day. 

1. Jesus failed to explicitly teach any of the cardinal 
human virtues. If he taught kindness and forgiveness it 
was usually at the expense of justice. 

2. He nowhere explains and inspires self-reliance and 
individual liberty. 

3. He nowhere condemns kingcraft, priestcraft and tyr- 
anny. He opposes their abuses, but not the radical evils 
out of which they spring. 



4. He has no just ideas of marriage and divorce. 

5. He nowhere explains the nature of heaven and hell. 
G. He does not teach the value of economy and thrift, 

but turns people loose with the notion that they must take 
no thought for the morrow. 

The following saying of Jesus exhibits the lack of a high 
moral sense of justice, and also the fact that he does nol 
pretend to be the savior of the whole human race. He said 
to his own countrymen : "Unto ^''ou it is given to know the 
mystery of the kingdom of God, but unto them that are 
without, all these things are done in parables; that seeing 
they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may 
hear, and not understand ; lest at any time they should be 
converted, and their sins be forgwenthem. (Mark 4: 11.) 

From this we learn that Jesus did not desire to save 
the Gentiles ; the parabolical stj^le was used in order to pre- 
vent them from becoming converted and having their sins 

In addition to this imperfection of the moral sense, 
Jesus was sometimes unforgiving in his spirit and practice. 
He says on one occasion: "Whosoever shall deny me be- 
fore men, him will I also deny before my father which is in 
heaven." (Mat. 10: 33.) 

It is true that he taught his disciples to love their 
enemies, but it is a precept he did not observe himself; he 
allowed himself to speak of those who did not accept his 
teachings as, "fools," "hypocrites," "thieves," "serpents," 
"vipers," and man}'- other abusive epithets, which clearly 
exhibit on his part anger and hatred. We have another 
instance of liis unforgiving spirit in that myth of the dying 
thief on the cross. It is there recorded that Jesus prayed 
for the forgiveness of his enemies, but had he been consist- 
ent with that prayer, he would not have pardoned one 
thief without also pardoning the other. When he could 
ask God to forgive his enemies, it would have been de- 
manded by his own rule, that h(» also forgive them; but, 
on the contrary, ho only forgivcH th(; nialefactoi' who spoke 


words ill his ijraise. This spirit is carried out in the doc- 
trine of future rewards and^unishments, 

Jesus Exhibits an Imperfect Sense of Justice. 

In faiHng to recognize the rights of property ; in his de- 
nunciation of the rich; in his teachings of submission to 
wrong; in his professing to pardon sin, even before it is 
asked for, Jesus errs. This moral sense is lacking in his 
teachings concerning God. Take this as an illustration : 
" Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto 
him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three 
loaves; for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, 
and I have nothing to set before him. And he from within 
shnH answer and say. Trouble me not ; the door is now shut, 
and ray children are with me in bed ; I cannot rise and give 
thee. I say unto you. Though he will not rise and give him, 
because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he 
will rise and give him as many as he needeth." (Luke 
11: 15.) 

And so it is with God, he leads us to believe, for though 
he is our friend he will not grant our requests ; but if we an- 
noy and tease him, at last, worn out, he will answer our 
prayers to get rid of us. Therefore, "Ask and it shall be 
given you; for every one that asketh receiveth." 

The parable of the unfortunate widow is another in- 
stance in point: "There was in a city a judge who feared 
not God, neither regarded man [same kind of judges in our 
cities now]. And tliere was a widow in that city, and she 
came unto him, saying. Avenge me of mine adversary. 
And he would not for a while; but afterwards he said within 
himself, Though T fear not God, nor regard man, yet because 
this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her con- 
tinual coming she weary me." (Luke 18: 2-6.) It is just 
so in praying to God. He may not hear you or heed you at 
first, yet by a " continual coming and troubling him," he 
must of necessity at last become weary and grant you the 
desires of your heart, in order to escape being troubled. 


At Olio time the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman 
to Jesus who had been taken in the act of adultery, and 
jisked for his judgment. He said: *' He that is witliout sin 
among you let him first cast a stone at her." This was a 
well-directed rebuke, and they ielt it, and the^^ "went out 
one by one, beginning at the eldest even unto the last." 
Then Jesus, standing alone with the woman, asks, "Woman 
where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned 
thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, 
Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more." (John 
8: 7-11.) 

In all parts of the Bible adultery is condemned, and by 
all civil laws it is now prohibited, and all religious teaching 
forbids it, and there is no reason in this case why Jesus 
should not have condemned the act, even while he showed 
mercy to the actor. Here as elsewhere Jesus shows mercy 
at the expense of justice. Were these principles carried out 
in life, the criminal would go untried and unpunished. 

" Go into the village over against you, and straightway 
you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her ; loose them 
and bring them unto me. And if any man Biiy aught unto 
yjpu, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them, and staight- 
way he will send them. All this was done, that it might be 
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying. Tell ye 
the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, 
meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. 
And the disciples went and did as Jesus command6d them, 
and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on their clothes, 
and set him thereon." (Mat. 21 : 2-7.) 

The writer would have us believe tluit Jesus rode upon 
two asses at once; but the prophet who could invent such a 
story must have been an ass himself to suppose that Jesus 
could ride upon two donkeys of such unequal size at one 
time. It was not the prophet, however, who perpetrated 
this outrage upon common sense, but the writer of Mat- 
thew, whoever he was. Mark, l^uke, and John mentioned 
the affair, and all agree in speaking of one ass only. Had 


the writer read the prophet aright, ho would have quoted it 
differently, "Behold thj^King cometh unto thee, . . lowly, 
and sittin^^ upor. an ass; even a colt, the foal of an ass." 
(Zech. 9: 9.) 

Another instance of this disregard of the interests of 
others is exhibited by Jesus where he casts the devils out of 
two men and permits them to enter the swine, "and the 
swine ran down a steep place into the sea and perished in 
the waters." Mark (5: 12) says there were about two 
thousand head, but there is not a word said about the 
equity of the proceeding. In this case Jesus does not offer 
an}'' compensation for the destruction of property which 
had been caused by him. 

He does not make even an apology or an explanation. 
No wonder, then, that the people became alarmed at this 
and asked him to go on his journey with as little delay as 
])Ossible: "The whole city came out to meet Jesus: and 
when they saw him, they besought him that he would de- 
part out of their coasts." (Mat. 8 : 34.) 

Another instance of this lack of the sense of justice is 
displayed in the parable of Dives and Lazarus. The one 
goes to heaven, that is, to Abraham's bosom, because he 
was poor, and the other to hell, because he was rich. Say 
what we may our ciAdlization is built upon wealth. Civiliza- 
tion, the highest and noblest estate of man, is achieved by 
the utter repudiation of poverty. The legitimate love of 
money is the spur of all human progress. Civilization would 
speedily degenerate into barbarism if this respect for prop- 
^ erty was removed. 

His views of poverty are in harmony with his teach- 
ings on other human interests : " Lay not up for yourselves 
treasures upon earth ; " "Take uo thought for the morrow ; 
for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself." 
How evident it is that one of the most essential virtues of 
life is here repudiated. 

Thoughtfulness about the future is a distinguishing 
trait of a wise man. To take no thought for the morrow 



would be as foolish as for one to bind himself hand and 
foot on the approach of his enemy. Science inspires man 
with earnest inquiry about the morrow, and also enables 
him by his perception of it how better to live to-day. 

"Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that 
would borrow of thee, turn not thou away." (Mat. 5: 42.) 
Society as it now exists would not last a. single day if his 
command were obeyed. Borrowing and lending is poor bus- 
iness, even as it is now carried on, but Avhat it would become 
under the universal practice it would be impossible to guess. 

"And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, 
what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to 
receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do 
good, and lend, hoping for nothing again." (Luke 6: 34.) 
So impracticable a precept is this, that no people have ever 
jiracticed it, nor could it be carried out without the demor- 
alization and overthrow of civilization. 

Jesus Teaches the Duty of Submission to Wrong. 

The general doctrines of resignation and contentment 
avG incompatible with strength of character and progress 
in life. The most worthy members of society everywhere 
are just those people who have the least resignation and 
contentment. Jesus does not seem to have cherished these 
conditions himself. He was neither contented nor resigned 
to the social status about him. "The powers that be" did 
not seem to him to be from above, but from beneath, and 
he accordingly waged war upon the existing social evils. 
But Jesus also teaches the duty of submission to wrong: 
"And unto him that smiteththee on the one cheek, offer also 
tlie other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not 
to take thy coat also. Give to every man that a,sketh of 
thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not 
again." (Luke : 29, 30.) Just think of it ! "And of him 
that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again." Society 
would be overthrown in a day if this command was carried 
out. We should have no commerce, no law protecting our 


various interests, no civilized society. Paul echoes the same 
notion when he says, ''Now, therefore, there is utterly a 
lault among you, because ye go to law one with another. 
Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather 
suffer yourselves to be defrauded? " (1 Cor. 6 : 7.) 

Suffer yourselves to be defrauded ! If human life has 
any virtue at all, it surely consists in some degree in doing 
the very opposite, that is, in not suffering ourselves to be 
defrauded. It is true that love seems at first sight to be an 
all-important virtue, and one incapable of abuse; but such 
love as induces us to submit to wrong is spurious. In the 
world as it exists about us, we are culpable v/hen we suffer 
ourselves to be defrauded. The common virtues which are 
recognized by all men are courage and resistance to wrong. 
Everywhere our eyes turn, vvo look to see the hero who 
nobly resists the vvrongs and frauds which the povv^erful per- 
petrate upon the weak and helpless. "Resistance to tyrants 
is the v»'iil of God" is the modern conception of duty. And 
in accordance therewith we have lav.s prohibiting wrong 
and fraud. Besides there is no manliness, self-reliance, or 
self-respect compatible with such craven submission, which 
is spiritless and purposeless. John Stuart Mill observes of 
Christianity: "Its ideal is negative rather than positive; 
passive rather than active; innocence rather than noble- 
ness ; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of 
good. In its precepts (as has been uell said), 'thou shalt 
not' predominates over 'thou shalt.'" 

Immoral Teachings of Jesus. 

" Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I 
tell you nay ; but rather division." (Luke 12: 51.) 

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his 
father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daugh- 
ter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Mat. 10: 35.) 

" I am come to send fire on earth; and what will I, that 
it be already kindled." (Luke 12 : 49.) 


"For from henceforth there shall be five in one house 
divided, three against two, and two against three. 

"The father shall be divided against tlie son, and the 
son against the father; the mother against the daugliter, 
and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in- 
law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law 
against the mother-in-law." (Luke 12: 52,53.) 

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father and 
mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, 
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 
14: 26.) 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I 
come not to send peace, but a sword." (Mat. 10 : 34.) 

"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, 
and the father the child: and the children shall rise up 
against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 
(Mat. 10: 21.) 

"And they said unto him. Lord, behold here are two 
swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." (Luke 
22: 38.) 

"He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and 
buy one." (Luke 22: 36.) 

Bitter and Unreasonable Denunciations of Jesus. 

"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers." 
(John 10: 8.) 

" Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lusts of your 
father ye will do." (John 8: 44.) 

" Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape 
the damnation of hell? " (Mat. 23 : 83.) 

"O, generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak 
good things?" (Mat. 12: 34.) 

"But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind 
me, Satan." (Mat. 16: 23.) 

"Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the Devil and his angels." (Mat. 25: 41.) 



• He that believetli and i s baptized shall be Baved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16.) 

Jesus a False Prophet. 

"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into 
another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone 
over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." (Mat. 
10: 23.) 

''Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, 
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man 
coming in his kingdom." (Mat. 16 : 28.) 

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall 
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 
and the stars shall fall from Jieaven and the powers of 
the heavens shall be shaken. 

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in 
Ilea von : and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, 
and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of 
heaven with power and great glory. 

"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a 
trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the 
four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch 
IS yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that sum- 
mer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, 
know that it is near, even at the doors. 

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass 
till all these things be fulfilled:' (Mat. 24 : 29-34.) 

" But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, 
which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the king- 
dom of God." (Luke 9 : 27.) 

"And he said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That 
there be some of them, that stand here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come 
with power.'"' (Mark 9: 1.) 

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree : When her branch 
is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves. Ye know that the 


siifnnier is near: So ye in like manner, wlien ye shall see 
these things come to pass know that it is nigh, even at the 
doors. Verily, I say nnto yon, That this generation shall 
not pass till all these things be done." (Mark 13 : 28-30.) 

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, 
and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, 
with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's 
hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those 
things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of 
heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son 
of man coming in a cloud, with power and great glory. 

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then 
look up, and lift up your heads : for your redemption draw- 
eth nigh. • 

"And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, 
and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and 
know of your ownselves that summer is now nigh at hand. 
So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know 
ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand." (Luke 
21: 25-31.) 

"If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to 
thee?" (John 21: 23.) 

It is unnecessarv to call attention to the fact that the 
foregoing passages imply that the end of the world was at 
hand. Jesus was a false prophet. 

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree. 
"The Jesus of the four gospels is alleged to have been 
God, all-wise; being hungry, he went to a fig tree, when the 
season of figs was not yet come. Of course there were no 
figs on the tree, and Jesus then caused the tree to wither 
away. This is an interesting account to a true orthodox 
trinitarian. Such a one will believe: first, that Jesus was 
God, who made the tree and prevented it from bearing figs; 
second, that, God the all-wise, who is not subject to human 
passions being hungry went to the fig tree, on which he 
knew there were no figs, expecting to find some there; third, 
ihat God the all-just then punished the tree because it did 


not bear ligs in opposition to God's eternal ordination."— 
I harles Bradlaugh 

Contemporaneous Historians are Silent Concerning the Kesurrec- 

tion of Jesus. 

Philo, Josepbu5;>, Seneca, Pliny the elder, and Pliny the 
younger, Diogenes, Socrates, Pausanias, Suetonius, Tacitus, 
Adrian, Marcus Aurelius, Lucian, and others have not one 
word to say about it. 

In answer to this a certain minister replies that : " Sen- 
eca, Diogenes, Laertes, Pausanias, Tacitus, and Marcus 
Aurelius, were Pagans, who certainly in works of stoic phi- 
losophy, travels, and geography would not discourse oi' 
Jesus." In answer to this I maintain that it is altogether 
probable, if not certain, that some of these writers would 
have recorded the "darkness over all the earth," which 
lasted some three hours (Luke 23 : 44) and the opening of 
the graves out of which many of the dead came and went 
into the city and showed themselves unto many: besides, 
there were several earthquakes. (Mat. 27: 51, and 28: 2, 
also Acts 16: 26.) Such marvels, especially the darkness 
over all the earth, and the earthquakes could not have 
escaped the pen of all such historians and philosophers. 

"Each of these philosophers (Pliny the Second and 
Seneca) in a laborious w^ork, has recorded all the great 
pheuoraena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and 
eclipses which his indefatigable curiosity could collect; 
neither of them has mentioned or even alluded to the mi- 
raculous darkness at the crucifixion." — Gibbon. 

The Resurrection oi Jesus. 

Comparing now the several narratives of the resurrec- 
tion with one another, we find this general result : 

In Mark Jesus is said to have appeared three times. 

1. To Mary Magdalene: 

2. To two disciples. 

• 8. To the disciples at meat. 

Two such appearances only are recorded in Matthew : 


1. To the women. 

2. To the eleven in Galilee. 
In Luke he appears : 

1. To Cleopas and his companion. 

2. To Peter. 

3. To the eleven and others. 

In the last chapters of John the appearances amount 
to four : 

1. To Mary Magdalene. 

2. To the disciples without Thomas. 
8. To the disciples with Thomas. 

4. To several disciples on the Tiberias lake. 
Paul extends them to six : 

1. To Peter. 

2. To the twelve. 

3. To more than five hundred. 

4. To James 

5. To all the apostles. 

6. To Paul. 

"Upon this most momentous question every one of the 
Christian writers is at variance with every other." (Amber- 
ley's "Analysis of lleligious Belief," p. 273.) 

They differ as to the number of women who visited the 
sepulcher. John mentions only one; Matthew names two, 
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark says there 
were three, the two Marys and Salome. Luke says there 
were more than three, the two Marys, Joanna, and certain 
others with them. They differ as to the number of persons 
in white seen at the sepulcher. Mark mentions one, "a 
young man." Matthew speaks of one, an angel. Luke 
says there were two men, and John that there were two 
angels. They disagree as to what was said by the persons 
in white. According to Matthew and Mark, they spoke of 
the resurrection of Jesus and his departure into Galilee, and 
sent a message to his disciples commanding them to follow 
him thither, in liuke they simply said that he was risen, 


and referred to a former prediction of his to this effect. 
In John they simply asfed Mary, "Woman! why weepest 

Discrepancies as to where Jesus went after his resurrec- 
tion. Matthew, dismissing Jesus from history with these 
words, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" 
(28 : 19), seems to know nothing of the ascension; for it is 
utterly incompatible with the assumption that he is an hon- 
est and faithful historian. He could not possibly neglect 
recording so important an event had he known it, and the 
plain inference— the irresistible conclusion is that if he did 
not record it, it was because no such thing had occurred. 

See with what brevity Mark concludes the career of 
Jesus. Mark gives these as the parting words of Jesus: 
"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was 
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of 
God." (16: 19.) 

How brief is the description of this wonderful scene ! No 
writer that had witnessed such a sight could possibly con- 
dense his thoughts and feelings concerning it into one 
sentence. He would have had much to say ; namely, of his 
own thoughts and emotions on the occasion, and what 
other witnesses said and did at the time the event occurred. 
Writers who go into particulars on less marvelous affairs 
would not be likely to dash off the most wonderful event 
that had ever happened before human eyes in one sentence. 
The thing is utterly improbable and incredible. "He was 
received up into heaven" reveals the credulity and supersti- 
tion of the times. How could the writer know where he had 
gone, if he had once passed away from his sight? Moreover, 
he knew nothing of a local heaven or of a personal God, yet 
he says that Jesus "sat (down) on the right hand of God," 
as though the Infinite Power which pervades the universe 
had two hands and was made in the image of man ! 

The only rational explanation we can put upon such 
language is to suppose it written by one who was not pres- 


ent at the time referred to, but had heard of it and had 
undertaken to give his version of what he heard, perhaps 
in the attempt trying to reconcile two or three different ver- 
sions of the story, and at the same time weave in his own 
opinion on the subject. At any rate, whoever wrote it, the 
writer does not claim to have been an eye-witness, and the 
legendary character of the account proves that the myth 
had been handed down to him. 

Luke (24: 50, 51) says: "And he led them out as 
far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed 
them; and it came to pass while he blessed them, he was 
parted from them and carried up into heaven." This ver- 
sion leaves out the sitting on the right hand of God— yet it 
has the same superstition of a local heaven — of which the 
v^^riter speaks as if he had as positive and distinct knowl- 
edge as he claims to have of Jesus and his resurrection. 

If Matthew closes without giving us anything of the 
after life and death of Jesus — if he breaks off abruptly with- 
out giving us any insight into the feelings of the disciples, 
Luke does not. He says that after they had witnessed the 
departure of Jesus they worshiped him and returned to 
Jerusalem with great jo^. (24: 52.) But this is totally 
unnatural. Wer cannot imagine disciples rejoicing in the 
loss of their friend. It is not human nature to be glad on 
such occasions. Wo alvv^ays grieve in parting with friends. 
The father grieves when he parts with his son, the mother 
weeps when she gives the parting kiss to her daughter. It 
may be said in reply that the disciples had faith that Jesus 
had gone to heaven. But this will not meet the difficulty, 
for Christian mothers believe when they part v/ith their 
sweet, innocent babes that they go straight to heaven, but 
does this belief dry their tears or soothe their anguished 
hearts? No, these mothers are frequently tormented to 
frenzy and even madness by the intense grief occasioned by 
loss of their dear ones. It is human nature to grieve upon 
the loss of friends, but here we find disciples who do not 
mourn when their dearest friend has departed from them. 


Tlie3' were glad of it, and bo the}^ ''returned to Jerusalem 
\villi groat joy.'' Such a paragraph as this could have been 
inserted in the story by some subsequent writer, but never 
could have been vvritten'^y one who had witnessed such an 
event. Another feature of this description, as given by Luke, 
is that it seems to be a slightly varied copy of the account 
given of Elijah. ''And it came to pass, as they still went on, 
and talked, that behold there appeared a chariot of fire and 
liorses of lire and parted them both asunder; and Elijah 
went up by a v/hirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2 : 11.) 

How close]}' Luke's account seems to resem.ble this! 
"And he led tliem out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up 
his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass while he 
blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into 
heaven." (Luke 24: 50, 51.) "And v/hen he had spoken 
these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a 
cloud received him out of their sight." (Acts 1 : 9.) 

How suggestive is the fact that the writers do not un- 
dertake to tell how he was translated ! The writer of the 
book of Kings gives us a "chariot of fire" and "a whirl- 
wind" as the modus operandi of translating Elijah from 
one world to the other (?), but here there are no agencies 
mentioned, and so far as the writers are concerned, there 
seems to be nothing incomplete or unreasonable in the state- 
ments that he "v\'as carried up into heaven," and "was 
taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight." We 
must suppose that persons witnessing such an extraordi- 
narv event would have some notions as to the means used 
in translating Jesus above the clouds, and that they could 
not fail to express them in giving an account of what they 
had seen. Their silence on this point, and the utter incredi- 
bility of the story make it apparent that the writer is merely 
recording myths. 

The last chapter-s of John are silent concerning the 
ascension. Now, as it is generally admitted by the best 
biblical critics that the last twelve verses of the last chap- 
ter of Mark are spurious, we have then only one of the four 


biographers of Jesus who mentions the ascension. It is 
utterly improbable that these three other writers should 
deliberately refuse to give an account of the greatest event 
they had ever seen. We must consider the discrepancies of 
the writers concerning the number of days that Jesus re- 
mained on earth after his resurrection. 

According to Luke's account, he did not remain on 
earth one day. "To-day shalt thou be with me in para- 
dise" (Luke 23: 43)— that is, in heaven; see 2 Cor. 12: 4. 
In this same twenty-third chapter of Luke, Jesus does not 
ascend until the third day after his crucifixion ; and in Acts 
1 : 3, it is recorded that he was "seen of them forty days." 

(Another shght discrepancy occurs in relation to the 
lengtli of time Jesus was in the grave. Matthew says (12 : 
40), "For as Jonas was three nights in the whale's belly ^ 
so sball the Son of man be three days and three nights in 
the lieart of the earth." But as Jesus was only two nights 
and one day in the grave there is no analogy between the 
two, hence the statement is radically erroneous. 

An orthodox clergyman critic explains this seeming con- 
tradiction in this way: "In regard to Jesus being only one 
day and two nights in the grave, the very same quantity of 
time ' three days and three nights,' and which according to 
our computation was one whole day, parts of two others 
and two whole nights, is termed three days aud three nights 
in tlie book of Esther. There is no impropriety in this in- 
terpretation." The word " interpretation" as here used is 
slightly equivocal, as is also the phrase "according to our 
computation." It is peculiar to mathematics that it does 
not change according to our computation or any kind of 
interpretation. It is always true that two and two make 
lour whether the book of Esther acknowledges the fact or 
Dot. And it not only damages the gospels to bring forth 
this hort of evidence, but it seriously derogates from the 
inspiration of the book of Esther, which thus attempts in 
defiance of arithmetic to make one day and two nights into 
three (hiys and three nights. 


No one saw Jesus come from the grave. Wlien Mary 
Magdalene came to the sepulcher, "Behold there was a 
great earthquake, fojtthe angel of the Lord descended from 
heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door 
and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning and 
his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers 
did shake and become as dead men. And the angel answered 
and said unto the women, Fear not ye, for I know that ye 
seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here, for he is 
risen -as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay." 
(Mat. 28: 2-6.) 

We have here the stone at the door of the sepulcher, 
nnd yet the body of Jesus had risen and departed from the 
tomb. There would seem to be no need in closing the grave 
after he had risen. But a. more serious criticism must be 
made upon the fact that it is not pretended that there was 
any eye-witness of Jesus coming from the sepulcher. We 
have only the word of an angel, but as a story abounding 
with conversations of angels is legendary we are not per- 
mitted to take their testimony. Besides, we have serious 
contradictions concerning the number of angels seen. Mat- 
thew says there was one angel, and that he rolled back the 
stone from the door and sat upon it. Mark says that when 
Mar}^ Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Sa- 
lome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and 
anoint him ; and very earlj^ in the morning, etc. "And they 
said among- themselves. Who shall roll us away the stone 
from the door of the sepulcher? And when they looked, they 
saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was very great. 
And entering, they saw a young man sitting on the right 
side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were af- 
frighted." (16: 1-3.) 

Luke also says the stone was rolled away when the 
women came to the sepulcher, and upon entering in, behold 
" two men '* stood by them in shining garments. John says 
Mary saw two angels in white sitting, the one at the head 



and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. 
Besides, she sees the stone rolled away from the door. Mat- 
thew records the descent of an angel from heaven ; the other 
biographers of Jesns know nothing of this starting point 
of the angel. Matthew here says that the angel rolled away 
the stone from the door, but Mark, Luke, and John say 
that the stone was rolled from the door of the sepulcher 
when Mary Magdalene came to it. Matthew here relates 
that Mary Magdalene saw an angel sitting upon the stone 
at the door outside of the sepulcher, but Mark says she saw 
a young man sitting down inside the sepulcher. Luke avers 
that she saw two men standing inside of it, and John affirms 
that Mary Magdalene sees two men sitting, " one at the head 
and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain; " 
but they do not tell her that Jesus had risen, as did the 
angql in Matthew, and the young man in Mark, and the two 
men in Luke. 

According to John, Jesus first appeared to Mary Mag- 
dalene. But according to Luke Jesus did not first appear 
to Mary Magdalene, but to two persons traveling from Je- 
rusalem to Emraaus : the name of one of them we are told 
was Cleopas. ( Luke 24 : 13.) But this appearance of Jesus 
to brethren who were not apostles is clearly legendary. The 
other synoptics seem to know nothing of it. It is wholly 
improbable that Jesus should, after his resurrection, appear 
first of all to two unknown Christians after this manner and 
accompany them upon such a journey. 

Now all the attendant circumstances of this event are 
mysterious, inexplicable, and improbable; and the closing 
paragraph removes the account beyond sober history. 
"And it came to pass as he sat at meat with them, he took 
bread and blessed it and broke and gave to them. And 
their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished 
out of their sight."' (Luke 24 : 30, 31.) 

'* Their eyes were holden," is superstitious, and as for 
his vanishing out of sight, we have the most unmistak- 


able traces of legend— the fiuit of ignorance and childish 

We are called upoif to believe that with feet, the bones 
of which were broken and crushed with the spikes driven 
through them on the cross, he traveled back to Jerusa- 
lem about as rapidly as did the two persons with whom ho 
journeyed to Emmaus. How could he walk upon feet thus 
crippled ? His hands were yet unhealed, although liis fellow- 
travelers did not perceive sucii wounds, nor did thej notice 
that he stepped haltingly. 

He possessed the same material body which he had be- 
fore his death. He could be seen and touched. All of which 
shows that he not only possessed a physical organization, 
but that it was the same body he had before his death. And 
yet this body could vanish from the two unknown brethren 
at Emmaus, it could travel rapidly, it could come in through 
closed doors, it could ascend from earth out of sight con- 
trary to the laws of gravitation ; he had flesh and bones, 
and could eat and drink. "And when he had thus spoken 
he showed them his hands and his feet, and while they 
believed not for joy and wondered, he said unto them, 
Have ye any meat? And they took and gave him a piece of 
broiled fish and honeycomb, and he took it and did eat 
before them." (Luke 24: 41-43.) 

It is useless to attempt any explanation of this diflBculty 
by calling his body a spiritual body. The disciples on this 
occasion, when Jesus suddenly appeared among them, 
thought they had seen a spirit, but Jesus wishing to dis- 
jibuse their minds, said, '"'Behold my hands and my feet, 
that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit batb not 
ilesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24 : 39.) 

If we accept this plain declaration, then, we are forced to 
enquire what became of this physical body. It surely must 
have died. It is certain that if he ate and drank, he had a 
nutritive system— a human organism — subject to death. 
And what became of this "corruptible body?" Matthew 
and John do not pretend to know anything about the mat- 


ter. Mark bas no knowledge of the final disposition of his 
body, for the last twelve verses of Mark are generally re- 
garded as spurious. Why should not all these writers have 
possesed the same information that Luke pretends to have? 
They do not write to complement and supplement the wri- 
tings of one another, bnb each claims to give the important 
features of Jesus' biography independently. Is not the end 
of Jesus' career on earth important, in order to understand 
his life and character? Three of the four biographers by 
their silence say either that there is no importance to be at- 
tached to the ascension of Jesus, or that it was unknown to 
them ; in other words, that it did not occur. 

Passing this, we encounter irreconcilable contradictions 
between different writers as to the locality where Jesus 
appeared to his disciples after his resurrection. Matthew 
says the angel at the sepulcher informed the woman to "go 
quickly and tell his disciple that he is risen from the dead, 
and behold he goeth before you into Galilee ; there ye shall 
see him." (28 : 7.) "And as they went to tell his disciples, 
behold, Jesus met them and said, All hail ! " (28 : 9.) But 
as the angel had instructed them to go into Galilee, so also 
does Jesus give the same command, "Go tell my breth- 
ren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." 
(28: 10.) 

Mark gives a very similar account of the woman com- 
ing to the tomb and seeing the "young man," who said, 
"Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was 
crucified ; he is risen ; he is not here ; behold the place where 
they laid him. But go your way and tell his disciples that 
he goeth before you into Galilee, there ye shall see him, as 
ho said unto you." (16 : 6, 7.) 

The writers of the third and fourth gospels know nothing 
of any command to go into Galilee; but on the contrary, 
Luke relates the command of Jesus to his disciples to re- 
main where they were until they should receive blessings 
from God. "Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be 
endued with power from on high." (24 : 49.) Here is nmn- 


ifestly an entire unconsciousness of any necessity of the 
disciples for going into Galilee. For, after giving this 
command, Luke goes on to say, "He led them out as far 
as Bethany, and he Wfted up his hands and blessed them. 
And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted 
from them, and carried up into heaven." (24: 50, 51.) 

The two gospels of Mark and Luke make no mention of 
any journey; but on the contrary, the immediate ascension 
of Jesus precludes the possibility of it. Matthew, who knows 
nothing of any ascension, gives this very equivocal state- 
ment of the affair: "Then the eleven disciples went away 
into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed 
them, and when they saw him they worshiped him, but 
some doubted." (28: 16, 17.) But this is too vague; the 
point which would most interest us to know is what they 
doubted and who it was that doubted. Another equally 
vague expression is found in the fourth gospel, where it is 
related of Peter and John that they went into the sepulcher, 
"Then went in also that other disciple which came first to 
the sepulcher, and they saw and believed'^ (20: 8); but 
what they saw and believed is 'not made plain, except that 
they saw an empt}'' tomb, or at least one which contained 
only the "linen clothes;" but what they believed concern- 
ing this empty grave we are not informed. If their belief 
maintained any correspondence with what they saw, they 
believed that they had seen an empty grave. But our difii- 
culties do not cease; we are surprised that these early 
visitors of sepulchers do not see anything of the material in 
which Jesus was embalmed. It is recorded that "there came 
also Nicodemus which at the first came to Jesus by night, 
and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hun- 
dred pound weight." (John 19: 39.) 

It is but natural to suppose that if the linen clothes 
were laid off, the myrrh and aloes also would be found lying 
with them, for there is no probability that Jesus would go 
abroad a la mummy. We might ask where the clothes came 
from that he wore after coming out of the sepulcher. His 


own garments had been taken bj the soldiery when he died, 
that the scripture might be fuWUed (?), but where is the 
sr-ripture fulfilled which informs us whence came his resurrec- 
tion garments? He did not go into society nude, and yet 
we have no evidence that any provisions were made for n 
new suit of clothes. Some have supposed that when Mary 
saw him and mistook him for the gardener her mistake 
arose from the fact that he may have been clothed in the 
garments of the gardener. But how did he get possession 
of them ? 

We must return to the contradictions in regard to the 
embalmment of Jesus. Matthew's version excludes the 
myrrh and aloes. He says, '^Vud when Joseph had taken 
the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it 
in his own new tomb." (27:59,60.) 

The fourth gospel, as we have seen, relates that when 
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had received the body 
of Jesus, they embalmed it in "a mixture of myrrh and 
aloes, about an hundred pound weight." Mark knows noth- 
ing of this, and his account wholly excludes it. Joseph 
''bought fine linen and took him down and wrapped him in 
the linen and laid him in the sepulcher." (15: 46.) "And 
when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the 
mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices that 
they might come and anoint him." (16 : 1.) If the women 
came on the third day to embalm the body, they certainly 
knew nothing of its embalmment on the day of his death. 
Luke's version also excludes the version of the fourth gos- 
pel. As in Mark, so in Luke, they came on the first day of 
the week to perform this rite of embalmment. "And they 
[the women] returned and prepared spices and ointments . 
. . and upon the first day of the week, very early in the 
morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices 
which they had prepared." (23: 56, and 24: 1.) 

Some exegetes have interpreted this, by saying that 
"the women came to embalm the body of Jesus, being 
wliolly ignorant of what Joseph and Nicoderaus had done." 


This might be sufficient if it were not for the fact thiit the 
women saw Jesus after he was put in the tomb. ''And Mary 
Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he 
was laid." (Mark 15: 47.) Matthew corroborates this: 
'•xVud there was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, sit- 
ting over against the sepulcher" (27: 61) when Jesus was 
placed in it. 

The obvious meaning of these texts is that they saw 
him wrapped in "the fine linen " and laid away in the tomb. 
Here, then, are the contradictory statements. The writer of 
the fourth gospel relates how Jesus was embalmed on the 
day of his death; the writers of the second and third gos- 
pels state that the women came on the third day to perform 
this service, v.holly unconscious of such embalmment hav- 
ing taken place on the day of Jesus' death; while the writer 
of the first gospel knows nothing of the embalmment on 
the day of his death, nor of the intended embalmment on 
the third day. He speaks of the early visit of the women as 
coming merely to see the grave. "In the end of the Sab- 
bath, as it began to dawn, toward the first day of the week, 
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepul- 
cher." (28: 1.) 

Further contradictions are found in the statements of 
the writers as to the time when the women prepared the 
spices. Mark says (16: 11), that when the ''Sabbath was 
past'' the women bought spices with which to anoint the 
body of Jesus. Luke says they bought them before the 
Sabbath; "And they returned and prepared spices and 
ointments, and rested on the Sabbath day." (23 : 56.) 

Jesus Foretells his Resurrection. 

There are a number of passages in the gospels which 
sliow that Jesus told his disciples over and over again that 
he should rise on the third day, and there are other pas- 
sages which as plainly show that they had no thought of 
any such resurrection when the third day came. If he re- 
peatedly told his followers that he was to be put to death 
lu Jerusalem and rise again the third day, we must conclude 


that his disciples would remember his sayings and that at 
least some of them would wait for the third day to come, 
expecting to see the miracle transpire. But we are as- 
tounded to read over and over again of this "rising 
again the third day," and yet find no friend remembering 
or expecting the event when the third day came. It is urged 
that Jesus' followers did not imderstand his words, but this 
will not meet the case. If several of these disciples were in- 
telligent enough to write the biography of their Master they 
could not have been so stupid as not to understand such 
plain words; besides, we must remember that his enemies 
understood him. 

The Pharisee said to Pilate, "Sir, we remember that 
the deceiver said while he was yet alive. After three days I 
will rise again." 

Pilate said, "Ye have a watch, go your way, make it 
sure as ye can." The disciples could not have failed to un- 
derstand him, because it was a special effort on the part of 
Jesus to show that he must die and rise again on the third 

"But their eyes were holden that they should not know 
him." (Luke 24: 16.) 

This miraculous blindness is too irrational to discuss. 
It is certain that if their eyesight was good enough to see 
what was in the tomb "when it was yet dark'' (John 20: 
1), they would surely recognize an intimate friend if the^' 
journeyed with him in the highway in the middle of the 

"From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his 
disciples how that he must go up to Jerusalem, and suffer 
many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and 
be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Mat. 16: 

"And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, 
The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men : 
And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise 
again." (Mat. 27: 22,23.) 


"And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve dis- 
ciples apart in the way and said unto them, Behold we go 
up to Jerusalem an^Tthe Son of man shall be betrayed unto 
the cliiefs and priests and unto the scribes, and they shall 
condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles 
to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him : and the third 
day he shall rise again." (Mat. 20 : 17-19.) 

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must 
suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the 
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days 
rise again. And he spoke that saying openlyJ^ (Mark 8 : 

There is not a chance to refer this prediction to the esot- 
e/'ic teachings of Jesus, for he ^^ spake that saying openly.''^ 

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The 
Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they 
shall kill him, and after that he is killed he shall rise the 
third day." (Mark 9: 31.) 

"And he took again the twelve and began to tell them 
what things should happen unto him, saying, Behold, we 
go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered 
unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall 
condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, 
and they shall mock him, and shall scourge him; and shall 
spit upon him; and the third day he shall rise again." 
(Mark 10: 32,33.) 

"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be 
rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be 
slain, and be raised the third day.'^ (Luke 9 : 22.) 

" Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, 
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are writ- 
ten concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For 
he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked 
and spitefully entreated and spitted upon; and they shall 
scourge him, and put him to death, and the third day he 
shall rise again." (Luke 18: 31-33.) 


These teaching are so plain and repeated so often that 
it is inconceivable that his d'sciples shonld not comprehend 
his meaning. If these passages had been as enigmatical as 
the following, there might have been some grounds for the 
claim of ignorance or dullness on the part of the disciples : 
"For as Jonas was three davs and three nights in the 
whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and 
three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mat. 12 : 40.) 

But the above predictions have nothing dark or obscure 
about them. The time of his resurrection is always speci- 
fied as the third dsuyy 

None of the Disciples Looking for a Resurrection. 

With these numerous predictions of his resurrection be- 
fore us, let us see whether they can be made to harmonize 
with other statements on the subject. When immediately 
after the transfiguration Jesus warns his disciples not to re- 
veal what they had seen until after he hnd risen from the 
dead, we are told that they questioned among themselves 
"what risifl^ from the dead should mean." (Mark 9: 2.) 

How is it possible that such doubt and surprise could be 
expressed by men who had first witnessed the resurrection 
of Moses and Elias, and who had also seen the resurrection 
of the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain and 
Lazarus ! 

Now it is plain that if they had ever witnessed these 
miraculous resurrections, they could not possibly have won- 
dered " what the rising from the dead should mean." Both 
statements cannot be true, for if they thus wondered, it is 
proof enough that they had never seen the dead raised to 
life; and if they did not so express themselves, then the 
gospels are unhistorical. That they never queried in this 
manner among themselves is evident from the fact that the 
resurrection from the dead was at that time a doctrine gen- 
erally accepted by the Jews. It is evident that those who 
undertook the embalmment of Jesus had no thought of his 
resurrection within forty -eight hours. But suppose it con- 


ceded that Jesus was deserted by his iinmediato friends, au«l 
his body handed over to Joseph and Nicodemus, who 
embalmed it in "a mixture of myrrh and ohves about one 
Imndred pound," possibly being ignorant of the repeated 
predictions of his resurrection on the third day, which were 
made to the disciples ; still this is unavailing, as the disci- 
ples are also ignorant of any rising from the dead to take 
place on the third day. The women undertook the task of 
embalming the body of Jesus, but they seem not to have 
got fully prepared for the task until the third day. AVhen 
his body was taken down from the cross and wrapped in 
linen. and put in the sepulcher, "the women also which came 
with him from Galilee followed after, and beheld the sepul- 
cher and how his body was laid, and they returned and 
prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day 
according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of 
the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sep- 
ulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared." (Luke 
23: 55, 56, and 24: 1.) 

"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward 
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the 
other Mary to see the sepulcher.'' (Mat. 27 : 61.) 

These two writers, while not agreeing on the object of 
the women's visiting the sepulcher, nevertheless do agree 
that they did not go expecting to see the sepulcher empty. 

This early visit was made ostensibly to anoint or em- 
balm the body of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and the other 
women did not even dream of a resurrection— she did not 
come expecting to find the tomb empty, but was concerned 
to know^ how they should remove the stone from the mouth 
of the tomb. It is evident that if she had heard Jesus say 
repeatedly that on the third day after his death he would 
rise again, she would not have forgotten it; and if she had, 
she must have recollected his predictions when she found 
the grave empty. In fact she never once thinks of a resur- 
rection, but when she sees the empty grave, exclaims, "They 


liave taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we 
know not where they have laid him." (John 20: 2.) 

Luke says that, "As the women were much perplexed 
thereabout, behold two men stood by them in shining gar- 
ments, and as they were afraid, and bowed themselves to 
the earth [people usually run away when they are fright- 
ened] they said unto them, Why seek ye the hving among 
the dead? He is not here, but is risen; remember how he 
t^poke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying : The Son 
of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and 
be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remem- 
bered his words." (Luke 24 : 5-8.) 

This is evidently an afterthought, an effort to fill out 
an imperfect record, but the patch is too perceptible; for 
had it been that the women needed only to have their mem- 
ory jogged to recollect the prediction of Jesus concerning 
his rising from the dead on the third day, we may infer that 
a similar reminder would refresh the memory of the eleven, 
but on the contrary they scouted the idea of such a thing. 
The women "returned from the sepulcher and told all these 
things unto the eleven, and the rest . . And their words 
seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.'' 

(24: 9,11.) 

Mark also says that the eleven did not believe the story 
of Mary Magdalene : " She went out and told them that had 
been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when 
they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, 
believed noV (16:10,11.) 

They also had not so much as a dream of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus. They were not waiting and watching for the 
third day to come that they might see the predictions of eTe- 
sus fulfilled and their hearts filled to overflowing with joy at 
the sight. They were not at the sepulcher, as we might nat- 
urally expect. True, it was not too early for the women 
impelled by human love to be there with ointments and 
spices; but the eleven who were baptized with heavenly love 
(John 20 : 22), entertained not the first thought of visiting 


tlie grave. And even when the marvelous scenes witnessed 
by the women are clearly stated to the eleven who had 
heard him teach thai;- he must go up to Jerusalem and bo 
killed and the third day rise again— who had heard this 
leaching and prediction repeatedly and openly, and in the 
plainest language, and yet did not believe anything in it or 
in the report of the women— all this is simply incredible. 
We are forced to conclude that if they were not at the toml) 
on the third day, and scouted the story of the women— for 
''their words seemed to them as idle tales"— they had never 
once heard Jesus say he would rise from the dead on the 
third day. 

Luke says, that of the eleven only Peter went to the 
sepulcher, and that stooping down ''he saw the linen clothes 
laid by themselves, and departed wondering in himself at 
that which had come to pass." (24 : 12.) 

He wonders, but expresses no thought of a resurrection. 
The writer of the fourth gospel contradicts Luke in saying 
that there were two persons who went to the sepulcher on 
that occasion. " Peter therefore weut forth, and that other 
disciple, and came to the sepulcher . . . Then went in also 
that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he 
saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, 
that he must rise again from the dead." (John 20: 3, 9, 10.) 

"He saw and believed," but we are not told what he 
believed. He did not certainly believe in the resurrection of 
Jesus. "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he 
must rise again." This passage is plainly legendary. It 
belongs to a later age when the dogma began to control the 
minds of Christians; for it is true that the early Christians 
did not insist so much upon the evidence of miracles as they 
<lid upon the prophecies. It must have been written long af- 
ter that time, for it is not the "scriptures" they needed to 
know to be informed concerning his resurrection, but the 
plain language of Jesus which he had with special effort, and 
in an open manner uttered in their ears but a few days be- 
fore. It was wholly needless for them to know the scriptures 


in order to recollect these prophetic predictions. Regard 
these statements as we may, they are certainly nnhistor- 
ical. For if Jesus so frequently spoke of his death and 
subsequent resurrection, then it is certain that they would 
have remembered his words, nnd if the}^ had not cherished 
them with faith, yet when they had heard from the women 
of the empty grave, they would without doubt, have re- 
called his predictions, and claimed their fulfillment. But 
they do no such thing. They said of the women's story 
what was probably true, that "their words seemed to them 
as idle tales, and [therefore] they believed them not." 

The Evidence of Paul on the Resurrection of Jesus. 

He gives his testimony in this form: "For I delivered 
unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ 
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was bur- 
ied, and that he rose again the third day according to the 
Scriptures. And that he was seen by Cephas, then by the 
twelve. After that he was seen of above five hundred breth- 
ren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this 
present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen 
by James, then by all the Apostles. Andlast of all he was 
seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Cor. 
15: 4-8.) 

In this statement Paul does not pretend to have wit- 
nessed the event himself, but preaches it as a doctrine which 
he had "received." He speaks of it as a tradition, "that 
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and 
that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day 
according to the Scriptures.'' 

This language betrays the influence of the dogma of a 
later date; for the writer in speaking of the five hundred by 
whom Jesus was said to have been seen says, " of whom the 
greater part remain unto this present [day] but some are 
fallen asleep." "Unto this present" [day] shows that the 
writer is making his fecord long after the event. 


Paul wrote probably about twenty-five years after the 
date of the events he records. And the writers of the gos- 
pels also wrote at a lf\te date. Matthew says, ''And this 
saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this 
dayr (28: 15.) 

^x-- The phrase "until this day" points out the fact that 
the gospel records were not completed until long after the 
time of their occurrence. In addition to this, there were 
many gospels recording the life and doings of Jesus. " For- 
asmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a 
declaration of those things wiiich are most surely believed 
among us." (Luke 1 : 1.) '^Believed among us"— he did 
not know, but merely believed these things. Now suppose 
we had these other gospels, what harmony could we expect 
to find among the imaginary five hundred if they had left a 
record of what was "most surely believed.^' 

'""^ " He was seen by Cephas." It is significant of Paul's 
independence, that while the writers of the four gospels all 
explicitly declare that Jesus first appeard to Mary Magda- 
lene, Paul knows nothing of such an appearance. That he 
makes no mention of this first appearance of Jesus is evi- 
dence that he wrote independently of others, as he said he 
did, and also that he wrote before the evangelists wrote. 
Ho had no honors to bestow upon women, as his writings 
show, and if he had ever heard of this appearance to Mary 
Magdalene, he concluded that it was " an idle tale." (Luke 
24: 11.) 

It is noticeable also that although this doctrine is "re- 
ceived" as a prediction of the scriptures, yet no one is 
recorded in either of the gospels or writings of Paul as hav- 
ing seen Jesus rise from the sepulcher. Even though it is 
affirmed that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary had seen 
the angel from heaven roll back the stone from the mouth 
of the sepulcher, yet they did not witness any resurrection. 
All that Paul "received " on this subject was the current 
traditions. As a Pharisee, he believed in the doctrine of a 
general resurrection, and it was most natural for him to 


accept such tradition into his beUef. That he wrote under 
Ibe influence of a later age, when the dogma began to 
assume character, is manifest in the recourse lie has to 
scripture evidences. "And that he rose again the third 
day according to the Scriptures.'" (1 Cor. 15: 4.) But 
the passages usually cited as proof-predictions that Jesus 
should rise from the dead, when examined, cannot be 
regarded as Messianic at all; for the idea of a suffering 
Messiah was wholly foreign to the Jewish mind. The script- 
ures usually cited are Isaiah 53 ; Psalms 22 and 69 ; Psalms 
16: 10; Hosea6: 2. 

As illustrating the free use made of the scriptures, we 
have only to compare Matthew 12: 40 with parallel pas- 
sages of Mark and Luke. Mark (8: 11), says, "And the 
Pharisees came forth and began to question with him, seek- 
ing of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. And ho 
sighed deeply in his spirit and saith. Why doth this gener- 
ation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, there shall 
no sign be given unto this generation." 

Luke (11: 29-31) states that "when the people were 
gathered thick together, he began to say. This is an evil 
generation ; they seek a sign ; and there shall no sign be 
given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas 
was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall the Son of man be to 
this generation." 

Matthew gives two versions of this incident, "A wicked 
and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there 
shall be no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonas." (16: 
4.) "Certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, 
saying, Master, w^e would see a sign from thee. But he 
answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous gen- 
eration seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given 
to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. For as Jonas was 
three days and three nights in the whale's belly so shall the 
Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of 
the earth." (Mat. 12 : 38-41.) 


Here it will be observed is an illustration of the growth 
of the dogma and myth in adding this reference to Jonas. 
And it is highly significant that the application of the mj^th 
of Jonas is wholly fanciful, as the passage referred to (Jo- 
nah 1: 17.) has not the slighest character of prophecy. 
That the scriptures are evidently tortured is obvious U-om 
the fact that Jesus was only one day and two nights in the 
heart of the earth, and, as before said, the passage is not 
prophetic; besides, its varied form in the gospels plainly 
shows it to be a myth. 

/^^ "He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve, and after 
that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once." 
But there were only e/e Fee Apostles until after the ascension, 
when Matthias was elected to fill the vacancy occasioned by 
the death of Judas. "And they gave forth their lots, and 
the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the 
eleven apostles." (Acts 1 : 26.) 

This election of Matthias took place after the ascension. 
He could not therefore have been seen by the "twelve" after 
his ascension (and there were not twelve until after the as- 
cension), only by the "eye of faith." 

That Jesus was seen by above five hundred is nothing 
more than naked statement. Paul does not claim to have 
been one of that number. This episode, moreover, is not 
mentioned in any of the four gospels. It is remarkable tha,t 
so great an event should be passed over by other writers 
also, for not a trace of it can be found elsewhere. It is diffi- 
cult for us to understand how this marvelous scene could 
so completely perish out of sight of aU writers except one 
who was not present, but merely heard of it afterward. 
That Paul may have believed the story we do not deny— 
and that he believed that the greater part of the witnesses 
"remain imto this present" time. Now if these survivors 
remained he does not mention the names of any of them. 
And besides, they were not within reach of the Corinthians 
\who might wish to hear and investigate their testimony, 



for the Corinthians did not accept the resurrection of Jesus 
as a matter of fact. 

How could five hundred disciples come together immedi- 
ately at one time, when some time after the ascension the 
number of disciples at Jerusalem was only one hundred and 
twenty? (Acts 1 : 15.) 

We need to know something of the character of those 
who gave Paul this information, and the sources of their 
knowledge. For it is all-important to our inquiry to know 
from whom Paul received these traditions and what evi- 
dences his informants had of the truth of the story they 
told. To believe in the reality of these appearances simply 
because Paul states that he has "received " his information 
from others and believes it to be true, without inquiring as 
to the character of his informers, is the blindest credulitv. 
Who were the five hundred? What did they think of the 
event ? How did Paul or any other person know what they 
thought, if there were no written statements by them ? 
Where and when did the five hundred see the risen Jesus? 

"Last of all he was seen by me." In another place he 
says, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 
9: 1.) 

Elsewhere he relates: "But when he was pleased, God, 
who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me 
through his grace to reveal his son in me, that I might 
preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not 
with flesh and blood, but I went into Arabia arid returned 
again to Damascus." (Gal. 1 : 15-17.) 

"For neither did I receive it from men nor was taught 
it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1 : 
11.) We shall find as we proceed that Paul saw Jesus sub- 
jectively. It is quite natural to so understand his words, 
"reveal his son in me." Especially does this seem obvi- 
ous when we remember that Paul was a man who firmly 
believed in visions and revelations. In relating his own 
experience he states this fact plainly. " I know a man in 
Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I can- 


^ not tell— God kDoweth), such a one caught up to the third 
heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body or 
out of the body, I cannfTt tell— God knoweth) how that he 
was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words, 
which it is not lawful for man to utter. Of such an one will 
I glory." (2 Cor. 12: 2-4.) 

^ In Acts there are three contradictory accounts of his 
seeing Jesus in a vision. "And as he journeyed, he came 
near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about 
him a light from heaven. And be fell to the earth and 
heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
thou me? And he said, Who art thou. Lord? And the 
Lord said I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest: it is hard 
for thee to kick against the pricks. And he, trembling and 
astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And 
the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it 
will be told thee what thou must do. And the men which 
journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but 
seeing no man." (Acts 9 : 3-7.) 

A second version is in this form : "And it came to pass 
that as I made my journey and was come nigh unto Damas- 
cus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great 
light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and 
heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul, why persecutest 
thou me? And I answered, Who art thou. Lord? And he 
said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecut- 
est. And they that were with me saw indeed the light and 
were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spoke 
to me. And I said. Lord, what wilt thou have me do? And 
the Lord said unto me. Arise, and go into Damascus, and 
there it shall be told thee of all the things which are ap- 
pointed for thee to do." (Acts 22 : 6-10.) 

The third account of the affair is given thus: "Where- 
upon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission 
from the chief priests, at mid-day, king, I saw in the way 
a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shin- 
ing round about me, And when we were all fallen to the 


earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, saying, in the XI e- * 
brew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutost thou nie? it is 
hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I -said, Who 
art thou. Lord? And he said, I am Jesus of Nazareth, 
whom thou persecutest . . . Whereupon, king, I was 
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.'" (Acts 26: 

According to the first account the companions of Paul 
"stood speechless" (9: 7); in the third they ''all fall to the 
earth.'' (26: 14.) Then again, in the first account it is 
said that the men "stood speechless, hearing the voice, but 
seeing no one." In the second it is stated that "they that 
were with me saw indeed the light, but they heard not the 
voice." These contradictions do not seem to clothe the vis- 
ion of Paul with the acceptable form of harmony. 

It will be observed that even in this vision Paul is not 
described as seeing Jesus. He sees a light and falls to the 
ground, and when he rises he is blind. "And they led him 
by the hand and brought him to Damascus. And he was 
three days without sight." (9 : 8.) 

In the continuation of this account Paul has another 
vision: "And it came to pass that when I was come again 
to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a 
trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get 
thee out of Jerusalem." (22 : 17, 18.) 

In connection with these visions and revelations it is 
highly significant that Paul never claims to have seen Jesus 
in the flesh, and he never speaks of the resurrection as ma- 
terial, but as spiritual. "It is sown a natural body, it is 
raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15: 44.) "Who shall 
change our vile bodies that it may be fashioned like unto 
his glorious body," (Phil. 3: 21.) Evidently there is no 
claim for seeing Jesus in the body made by Paul in any of 
his writings. He preaches the doctrine of the resurrection, 
but this doctrine he, as a Pharisee, believed before he be- 
came a Christian. Paul claims that in a vision ho saw 
Jesus. Luke says that this was also the manner in which 


Mary Magdalene and the other women saw Jesus. "And 
when they found not hig^body, they came, saying, that they 
had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was 
alive." (24: 2,3.) 

This gives force to the claim of Paul, that his seeing or 
vision of Jesus was of the same class as the visions of all 
the others who had seen him. 

Thus, after a careful examination of the writings attrib- 
uted to the immediate followers of Jesus, we find that not 
one of them says, " I saw Jesus rise from the grave ; " or '' 1 
saw Jesus in the flesh after his resurrection." In legendary 
style it is frequently repeated that he ''appeared" first to 
this and then to that one, but there is not the slightest evi- 
dence that any one saw him. And in this connection it is 
worthy of remark that Jesus did not appear to any persons 
except his friends. This gives better occasion for suspicion 
that the story is mythical. 

"Him God raised up the third day, and showed him 
openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen be- 
fore of God, even to us who did eat and drink with him." 
(Acts 10: 41.) To appear to a few private friends for one 
day does not seem much like bringing life and immortality 
to light to the whole world. The method is too narrow and 
exclusive. And even of these few friends not one has left the 
record for us of what he saw. The writers who have re- 
corded the current traditions of their time, agree in sa^'ing 
that Mary Magdalene found the grave empty : further than 
this the writers do not corroborate one another. 

How soon the resurrection of the physical body became 
popular we have no means of knowing. It was not certainly 
until some time after the writings of Paul were given to the 
churches, for he, as we have seen, speaks, of it as a spiritual 
resurrection. So also does Peter (1 Peter 3: 13), speak of 
Jesus "being slain in the flesh, but made alive again in the 

The legend became more and more marvelous as it 
spread abroad. Enthusiasm inflamed the minds of the 


ignorant and superstitious until the subjective visions of | 
Paul became crystalized into objective realities. His vis- 
ions, and the visions, revelations and messages of the 
angels of others were reduced in popular belief to histor- 
ical facts. 



1. No one of the four gospels is mentioned in a.ny other 
part of the New Testament. [This assuredly would not 
have been the case had they been the oldest, and the foun- 
dation on which the whole was built.] 

2. No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, 
no painting" or engraving, no sculpture or other relic of an- 
tiquity which may be looked upon as furnishing additional 
evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was 
executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. 
Even the explorations of the Christian catacombs failed to 
bring to light any evidence of that character. 

3. The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was 
no translation of them into other languages earlier than 
the third centurv. 

\ 4. No manuscript of the gospels are in existence dating 
further back than the fourth century. Of that century, or 
the next, there are three or four, and some twenty or thirty, 
more than a thousand years old. 

• 5. No autograph manuscript of any of the gospels has 
ever been known, so far as there is any authentic record, nor 
has any credible witness ever claimed to have seen such a 
manuscript. No one has ever claimed to have seen such a 
manuscript of either of the four gospels in the hand-writing 
of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or John. If the autograph manu- 
scripts had ever exist<3d they would have been preserved 
among the most sacred relics of the church. 



6. During the first two centuries tradition was esteemed 
of more value and better evidence of the gospel history, 
than any written books or manuscripts. 

7. The dialect in which the New Testament books were 
written, a sort of Hebraistic Greek, has been considered evi- 
dence of their antiquity. But this dialect prevailed three 
centuries after Christ, and was in full use during the second 
century. The same or similar Hebraisms abound in the 
apocryphal gospels of that age. 

8. The canonical gospels were selected by the bishops 
from a large number then in circulation. 

In taking a general review of the first hundred and sev- 
enty years of the Christian religion the first thing that 
strikes the mind is the dearth of material from which to 
construct a reliable history. It is seen at once how much 
must rest upon probability in its different degrees— how 
much must be relegated to the province of speculation. The 
works of the only church historian who wrote during that 
period, lost or destroyed the few fragments that are left be- 
ing of comparatively no value— the writings of Porphyry 
and others who wrote against Christianity, and those of 
the heretic Christians, all destroyed— there remain only the 
works of some of the orthodox fathers, and the text of those 
in a mutilated and corrupted condition. 

Such is the material at the hands of the historian. Of 
course he cannot rely implicitly upon the unsupported asser- 
tion of any such writer for the truth of any historical fact 
whatever. In every instance he is obliged to scrutinize 
carefully, and endeavor to ascertain whether any ulterior 
motives may have prompted whatever statement may be 
under consideration. If he can find none, and the fact 
stands uncontradicted by other writers, it is cautiously 
accepted. Under such circumstances progress is slow and 
uncertain. The most that any writer can hope to accom- 
plish is to place in proper shape what is already known, 


and to establiBli here jind there a landmark for the benefit 
of subsequent historians. 

In conclusion, as the result of this investigation, it may 
be repeated that no evidence is found of the existence in 
the first century of either of the following doctrines: the 
immaculate conception— the miracles of Christ — the mate- 
rial resurrection. No one of these gospels is found in the 
epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able to find 
them in other writings of the first century. 

As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that 
they were not written in the first century, we have but re- 
corded the conviction of the most advanced scholars of the 
present day, irrespective of their religious views in other 
respects; with whom as now presented, is, How early in 
the second century were they composed. Discarding as 
inventions of the second century, having no historical 
foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much 
else which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what 
remains of the Christian religion? (C. B. Waite, "History 
of the Christian Religion to the year 200.") 

The Canon. 

"The infancj^ of the canon w^as cradled in an uncritical 
age and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care 
was not directed from the first to the well authenticated 
testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three fathers who con- 
tributed most to its early growth, Irenseus was credulous 
and blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and 
Clement, of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek 
wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics. 

"Irenseus agrees that the gospels should be four in num- 
ber, neither more nor less, because there are four universal 
winds and four quarters of the world. The Word or Archi- 
tect of all things gave the gospel in a four-fold shape. 
According to this father the apostles were fully informed 
concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge after 
their Lord's ascension. 


"He says, 'Matthew wrote his gospels while Peter and 
Paul were preaching in Rome, and founding the chnrch.' 
Such assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration. 

"Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic 
churches guarantees the four gospels, and refers his readers 
to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., for the 
authentic epistles of Paul. What is this but the rhetoric of 
an enthusiast? 

"Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize 
Mark's gospel to be read in the churches, while in another 
place he says the apostles 'neither forbade nor encour- 
aged it.' 

"The three fathers of whom we are speaking had neither 
the ability nor inclination to examine the genesis of docu- 
ments surrounded with an apostolic halo. No analysis of 
their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted. 
In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical needs, 
directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric era- 
ployed to throw the value of their testimony as far back as 
possible, even up to or very near to the apostle John, is of 
the vaguest sort. Appeals to the continuity of tradition 
and of church doctrine, to the exceptional veneration of 
these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being formed 
earlier than the composition of the works in which they are 
expressed, possess no force. 

"The ends which the fathers in question had in view, 
their polemic motives, their uncritical, inconsistent asser- 
tions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony. 
Their decisions were much more the result of pious feeling, 
biased by the theological speculations of the times, than 
the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very argumonts 
they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of 
perception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling 
compared with the result of logical reasoning? " (Davidson 
on the Canon.) 

Thus we have the testimony of one of the ablest and 
clearest minds that has ever writt'Cn upon the canon winch 


the fathers most depended upon to establish the authen- 
ticity of the small books forming it, were "ignorant,'' 
"credulous," '^ blunderi;ig," ''passionate," "one-sided," 
"uncritical," "inconsistent," "possessed undue enthusiasm 
with contradictions;" "not possessing ability or inclination 
to examine;" "attempting no analysis of genuineness;" 
"an unreasonable apostohc reverence." "Custom, acci- 
dent, taste, and the tendency of tradition taking the place 
of careful examination ; " "a disposition to misrepresent ; " 
"exceptional veneration of the fathers for the gospels older 
than the composition;" "want of data; "their decisions 
the result of pious feeling based upon [incorrect] theolog- 
ical speculations;" "unsound judgment;" "weakness of 
perception;" "lack of logical reasoning." These are the 
characteristics of the fathers depended upon to establish the 
authenticity of a gospel story which has no soUd founda- 
tion to rest upon and which is clearly of an apocryphal 
character. ("Answers to Christian Questions" pp. 69-70, 
by D. M. Bennett.) 

"One hundred and seventy years from the coming of 
Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that 
carried with it the idea of holy and inspired." (Davidson 
on the Canon, p. 106.) 

"It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use 
the books of the New Testament as sacred documents 
clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most 
part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic 
tradition orally transmitted." (Ibid, p. 107.) 

. " Their decisions (the fathers) were much more the result 
of pious feeling biased by the theological speculations of the 
times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very 
arguments they use to estabhsh certain conclusions show 
weakness of perception." (Ibid p. 124.) 

"The men who first canonized them (the gospels) had 
no certian knowledge of their authors." (Ibid p. 127.) 

" That Luke did not wiite the gospel of Luke." (Ibid 
2, p. 25.) 


"The canon was not the work of the Christian Church 
so much as of the men who were striving to form the 
church." (Ibid p. 129.) 

"Professor Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, 
as we have it now could not have been written by Matthew. 
Intro. New Test. 1, p. 484. He says that the present Gos- 
pel of Mark was not written by Mark and that its author is 
unknown." (Ibid 2, p. 83, 84.) 

Of John's Gospel he says : 

"Its existence before 140 A. D. is incapable either of 
decision or probable showing. The Johannine authorship 
has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though 
this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible. 

"No certain traces of the existence of the fourth gospel 
can be found till after Justin Martyr, that is till after the 
middle of the second century." (Ibid 2, p. 520.) 

The Value of Papias' Testimony. 

"Suppose Papias is referring to our present gospel of 
Mark, what testimony have we to the authenticity of Jesus' 
words as contained in it? Just this: Eusebius says that 
Papias said that John the presbyter said that Mark said 
that Peter said that Jesus said thus and so." (Keeler's 
" Short History of the Bible," p. 19.) 

Ignorance and Dishonesty of the Early Fathers. 

That the charge of ignorance justly attaches to many 
of the fathers of the church, and that of dishonesty as well, 
there is abundant evidence, but a small portion of this can 
be given here. Mosheim, in part 2 chapter 3 of his "Ecclesi- 
astical History," says: 

"The interest of virtue and true religion suffered yet 
more grievously by the monstrous errors that were uni- 
versally adopted in this century, and became a source of 
innumerable calamities and mischiefs of succeeding ages. 
The first of these maxims was that it was an act of virtue 
to deceive and lie when by that means the interest of the 
church might be promoted ; and the second, equally horri- 


ble, though in another point of view, was "that errors in 
religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper 
admonition were punishable with civil penalties and cor- 
poral tortures." The former of these erroneous maxims 
was now of long standing. It had been adopted for long 
agoti past, and had produced an incredible number of ridicu- 
lous fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds to the 
remarkable detriment to that glonous cause in which they 
were employed. And it must be frankly confessed that the 
greatest men and the most eminent saints of this century 
[the fourthj were more or less tainted with the infection of 
this corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look 
with an attentive eye to their writings and actions. We 
would willingly except from this charge Ambrose, and Bil- 
iary Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome; but truth, 
which is more respectable than these venerable fathers, 
obliges us to involve them in the general accusation." 

At another time he says, as translated by Vidal : 

"At the time when he [Hermas] wrote, it was an estab- 
lished maxim with many Christians to avail themselves of 
fraud and deception, if it was likely they would conduce 
toward the attainment of any considerable good." 

He again says: 

"It was considered that they who made it their busi- 
ness to deceive, with a view of promoting the cause of truth, 
were deserving rather of commendation than censure." 

The French Protestant writer, Casaubon, talks in a sim- 
ilar way, thus : 

"It mightily affects me to see how many there were in 
the earliest times of the church who considered it a capital 
exploit to lend to heavenly truth the help of their own in- 
ventions in order that the new doctrine might be received 
by the wise among the Gentiles. These officious lies, they 
said, were devised for a good end." 

Le Clerc, corroborating these Qpinions, says : 

"Dissemblers of truth are nowhere to be met with in 
such abundance as among the writers of church history." 


M. Daille, another learned and impartial French writer, 
in his celebrated work, the ''Use of the Fathers," says: 

" AYe find them saying things which they did not them- 
selves believe. They are mutually witnesses against each 
other, that they are not to be believed absolutely on their 
bare word." 

In book 1 , chapter 6, he states upon the authority of 
St. Jerome, that: 

"Origin, Methodius, Eusebius, ApoUonaris, have writ- 
ten largely against Celsus and Porphyr3^ Do but observe 
their manner of arguing, and what slippery problems they 
used. They alleged against the Gentiles, not what they be- 
lieved, but what they thought necessary." 

Jerome himself adds : 

"I forbear mentioning the Latin writers, as TertuUian, 
Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hiliary, lest I 
should rather seem to accuse others than defend myself." 

Daille adds of the fathers : 

" They made no scruple to forge whole books." 

An able writer in the Eclectic Review of 1814, page 179, 
speaks of the fathers in this way : 

" When we consider the number of gospels, acts, epistles, 
revelations, traditions, and constitutions which were put 
in circulation during the first three centuries, and which 
are unquestionably spurious, we find sufficient reason for 
examining with care and receiving with extreme caution 
productions attributed to eminent men in the primitive 
church. Some of the early Christians do not seem to have 
possessed in some points a nice sense of moral obligation. 
The writing of books under false names, and the circulating 
of fables, were not accounted violations of duty; or, if the 
impropriety of such conduct was felt, the end proposed— the 
promotion of the Christian cause— was thought to justify 
the means employed for the accomplishment. (From D. M. 
Bennett's "Answers to Christian Questions," ]). 78-80.) 


Jesus Not a Historical Character. 

The following very pertinent argument is made use of 
by the Rev. S. Baring-^uld in his "Lost and Hostile Gos- 
pels" : " It is somewhat remarkable that no contemporary, 
or even early account of the life of our Lord exists, except 
from the pen of Christian writers. That we have none by 
Greek or Roman writers is not, perhaps, to be wondered at; 
but it is singular that neither Philo, Josephus, nor Justus 
of Tiberius, should ever have alluded to Christ or to primi- 
tive Christianity. Philo was born at Alexandria about 
twentj^ years before Christ. In the year A. D. 40 he was 
sent by the Alexandrian Jews on a mission to Caligula , to 
entreat the emperor not to put in force his order that his 
statue should be erected in the temple of Jerusalem and in 
all the synagogues of the Jews. Philo was a Pharisee. He 
traveled in Palestine, and speaks of the Essenes he saw 
there ; but he says not a word about Jesus Christ or his fol- 
lowers. It is possible that he may have heard of the new 
sect, but he probably concluded it was but insignificant, and 
consisted merely of the disciples, x^oor and ignorant, of a 
Galilean rabbi, whose doctrines he, perhaps did not stay to 
inquire into, and supposed they did not differ fundament- 
ally from the traditional teaching of the rabbis of his day." 

The Spurious Passage in Josephus. 

"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed he ought 
to be called a man] ; for he performed wonderful works [he 
was a teacher of men who received the truth with gladness]; 
and he drew to him many Jews and also many Greeks. 
.[This was the Christ.] But when Pilate, at the instiga- 
tion of our chiefs, had condemned him to crucifixion, they 
who at first loved him did not cease; [for he appeared to 
them on the third day again; for the divine prophets had 
foretold this, together with many other wonderful things 
concerning him], and even to this time the community of 
Christians called after him, continues to exist." 

That this passage is spurious has been almost univers- 
ally acknowledged. One may be accused perhaps of killing 


dead birds, if one again examines and discredits the pas- 
sage ; but as the silence of Josephus on the subject which we 
are treating is a point on which it will be necessary to insist, 
we cannot omit as brief a discussion as possible of the cele- 
brated passage. 

The passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) 
in two places (Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. 
3.), but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140.), 
Clement of Alexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 
193), and Origen (fl. A. D. 230.) Such a testimony would 
certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology, or in 
his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the 
copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still 
more significant. Celsus in his book against Christianity 
introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the arguments of Celsus 
and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words 
of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage ex- 
isted in the genuine text. He indeed distinctly affirms that 
Josephus did not believe in Christ. (Contra. Celsus 1.) 

Again the paragraph interrupts the chain of ideas in the 
original text. Before this passage comes an account of how 
Pilate, seeing there was a want of pure drinking water in 
Jerusalem, conducted a stream into the city from a spring 
two hundred stadia distant, and ordered that the cost 
should be defrayed out of the treasury of the Temple. This 
occasioned a riot. Pilate disguised Roman soldiers as elews, 
with swords under their cloaks, and sent them among the 
rabble, with orders to arrest the ringleaders. This was done. 
The Jews finding themselves set upon by other Jews, foil 
into confusion; one Jew attacked another, and the whole 
company of rioters melted away. "And in this manner," 
says Josephus, "was this insurrection suppressed." Then 
follows the paragraph about Jesus, beginning, "At this 
time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call 
him a man," etc., and the passage is immediately followed 
by, "About this time another misfortune threw the Jews 
into (JiHturbauce; and in Rome an event happened in the 


temple of Isis which produced great scandal." And then 
he tells an indelicate story of religious deception which need 
not be repeated here. The misfortune which befell the Jews 
was, as he afterward relates, that Tiberius drove them out 
of Rome. The reason of this was, he says, that a noble Ro- 
man lady who had become a proselyte, had sent gold and 
purple to the temple at Jerusalem. But this reason is not 
suflBcient. It is clear from what precedes— a story of sacer- 
dotal fraud— that there was some connection between the 
incidents in the mind of Josephus. Probably the Jews had 
been guilty of religious deceptions in Rome, and had made 
a business of performing cures and expelling demons, with 
talismans, and incantations, and for this had obtained rich 

From the connection that exists between the passage 
about the " other misfortune which befell the Jews," and the 
former one about the riot suppressed by Pilate, it appears 
evident that the whole of the paragTaph concerning our 
Lord is an interpolation. That Josephus could not have 
written the passage as it stands, is clear enough, for only a 
Christian would speak of Jesus in the terms employed. Jo- 
sephus was a Pharisee and a Jewish priest; he shows in all 
his writings that he believes in Judaism. 

It has been suggested that Josephus may have written 
about Christ as in the passage quoted, but that the por- 
tions within brackets are the interpolations of a Christian 
copyist. But when these portions within brackets are 
removed, the passage loses all its interest and is a dry 
statement utterly unlike the sort of notice Josephus would 
have been likely to insert. He gives color to his narratives; 
his incidents are always sketched with vigor ; this account 
would be meagre besides those of the riot of the Jews and 
the rascality of the priests of Isis. Josephus asserts, more- 
over, that in his time there were four sects among the Jews 
—the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the sect 
of Judas of Gamala. He gives tolerably copious particulars 
about these sects, and their teachings, but of the Christian 



sect he says not a word. Had he wished to write about itj 
he would have given full details, likely to interest his read- 
ers, and not have dismissed the subject in a couple of lines. 

It was perhaps felt by the early Christians that the 
silence of Josephus, so famous a historian and a Jew, on the 
life, miracles, and death of the founder of Christianity was 
extremely inconvenient ; the fact could not fail to be noticed 
by their adversaries. Some Christian transcriber may have 
argued, either Josephus knew nothing of the miracles per- 
formed by Christ — in which case he is a weighty testimony 
against them— or he must have heard of Jesus, but not hav- 
ing deemed his acts, as they were related to him, of suflBcient 
importance to find a place in history. Arguing thus, the 
copyist took the opportunity of rectifying the omission, 
written from the stand point of a Pharisee, and therefore 
designated the Lord as merely a wise man. (D. M. Bennett 
in " Jesus Christ." ) 

That this paragraph, concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, 
is not Josephus's but an interpolation, is argued from these 
several following considerations : 

1. It is not quoted or referred to by any Christian 
writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of 
the fourth century, and afterward. 

2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Jose- 
phus which were seen by Photius, in the ninth century. 

3. It interrupts the course of the narration. 

4. It is unsuitable to the general character of Josephus, 
who is allowed not to have been a Christian. 

5. If Josephus were the author of this paragraph, it 
would be reasonable to expect in him frequent mention of 
Christ's miracles ; whereas he is everywhere else silent about 

6. The word Christ or Messiah appears not in any place 
in all the works of Josephus, excepting two; namely, the 
paragraph which we have been considering, which is now in 
the eighteenth book of his Antiquities; and another in the 
twentieth book of the same Antiquities where is mention 


made of James, the brother Jesus who is called 'Christ.' 
(Works of N. Lardner, vol. 7, pp. 14, 15.) 


The Father of Church History. 

In referring to his work of writing a history of the 
church up to his own times, he says : 

" We are attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten 

Again he says of Philo Judaeus that he was a very 
''learned man." Among many other things which contra- 
dict this estimate, is the fact that Philo takes more than 
one hundred pages in showing how that dreams are sent 
from God. 

Again, Eusebius does not say that the last works of 
Hegesippus, Papias and Dionysius of Corinth, contain 
anything concerning the canonical gospels ; therefore, they 
contained none. 

We give the opinion of a few well-known writers upon 
this "father of church history" : Vi:i. 

In Draper's Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 197, 
Bunsen and Niebuhr are quoted— the one (Bunsen) assay- 
ing that he purposely "perverted chronology for the sake 
of making synchronisms," and the other (Niebuhr) declar- 
ing "he is a very dishonest writer." 

"Eusebius had a peculiar faculty of diverging from the 
truth." ( " History of Christian Religion," p. 7.) 
^ "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius, \ 
^ himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever \ 
might redound to the glory, and has suppressed all that 1 
could tend to the disgrace of religion." (Gibbon's "Rome," / 
^ol. 1, p. 493.) ^ 

"In one of the most learned and elaborate works 
that antiquity has left us, the thirty-second chapter of 
the twelfth book of his evangelical preparation, bears for 
its title this scandalous proposition : ' How it may be law- 


ful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine and for the 
benefit of those who want to be deceived.'" (Gibbon's 
"Vindication," p. 76.) 

" But Eusebius, the father of church history, capped the 
cUmax by fabricating the celebrated passage about " Jesus, 
a wise man, if it be lawful to call him such." ( "Anti-Christ, 
p. 28.) 

" He (Eusebius) has frankly told us that his principle in 
writing history was to conceal the facts that were injuri- 
ous to the reputation of the church." (Lecky's "European 
sJVTorals," vol. 1, p. 492.) 

"Eusebius, who would never lie or falsify except to pro- 
mote the glory of God." (Taylor's Diegesis, p. 345.) 

Eusebius pronounces a panegyric upon Constantine. 
The following is the list of Constantine's murders as given 
by Robert Taylor: 

Maximinian, his wife's father... A. D. 310 

Bassianus, his sister Anastacia's husband 

Licinianus, his nephew by Constantina 

Fausta, his wife 

Sopater, his former friend 

Licinius, his sister Constautina's husband 

Crispus, his own son 

" 319 
'* 320 
** 321 
'' 325 
** 32G 

And the church still continues to regard these two per- 
sons as holy men of God, raised up for a wise purpose— the 
one an open, wholesale murderer, and the other a cowardly, 
cunning and corrupt priest. The vast injury they have 
done the human race can never be computed. They poi- 
soned the fountains of civilization, and all Christendom has 
been drinking its poisoned waters ever since. If there are 
anywhere in history two men who have done their fellow 
men more positive harm and wrong, I do not know them. 
Their names should be held up to eternal scorn. 

Baronius, a sincere advocate of the Christian faith, calls 
Eusebius: "the great falsifier of ecclesiastical history, a 
wily sychophant, a consummate hypocrite, a time serving 
persecutor, who had nothing in his known life or writings 


to support the belief that he himself believed in the Chris- 
tian system." 

Eusebius is the source from whom all have drawn their 
material. Of him Deaik^Milman in a note to Gibbon's Rome 
says: "Tb is deeply to be regretted that the history of this 
period rests so much on the loose, and, it must be admitted, 
by no means scrupulous authority of Eusebius." (Page 85.) 

Spurious Writings of the Early Church. 

"Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several 
histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and 
fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose inten- 
tions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered 
the greatest superstition and ignorance." (Mosheim's "Ec- 
clesiastical ^History . ' ' ) 

" Christian churches had scarcely been gathered and or- 
ganized when here and there men rose%p who, not being 
contented with the simplicity and purity of that religion 
which the apostles taught, attempted innovations, and 
fashioned religion according to their own liking." (Mos- 
heim's "Ecclesiastical History," vol. 1, c. 5.) 

" To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat tra- 
dition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we 
give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by 
some person of undoubted veracity." (Extract from Bow- 
er's "Lives of the Popes." ) 

"This opinion has always been in the world, that to 
settle a certain and assured estimation upon that which 
is good and true, it is necessary to remove out of the way 
whatever may be an hindrance to it. Neither ought we to 
-wonder that even those of the honest, innocent, primitive 
times made use of these deceits, seeing for a good end they 
made no scruple to forge whole books." (Daille on the Use 
of the Fathers, b. 1, c. 3.) 

The Bible Not an Inspired Revelation. 

"What would be the characteristics of a revelation? 
1st. A revelation would be free from inherent contradie- 


tions. Does the New Testament revelation stand this test? 
2d. A revelation would not contradict natural laws, for 
nature is the only undisputed revelation to man. 3d. A 
revelation would be so authenticated that it would be more 
reasonable to admit than to deny its claims. The history 
of thousands of years proves that, so far, no revelation has 
been made that compels the mind's assent, as thousands of 
thinking men reject the so-called revelation of the New Test- 
ament. The New Testament does not claim infallibility for 
itself; and proving that a book is infallible does not prove 
that it was inspired, else we might claim inspiration for the 
problems of Euclid." (Anon.) 

" When Moses told the children of Israel that he received 
the two tables of commandments from the hands of God, 
they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no 
other authority forjt, than his telling them so ; and I have 
no authority for it than some historian telling me so. The 
commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with 
them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as 
any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator, could 
produce himself without having recourse to supernatural 
intervention." (Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason." ) 

"Revelation is a communication of something which the 
person, to whom that thing is revealed, did not know before. 
For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no reve- 
lation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable 
me to tell it, or to write it." (Thomas Paine's "Age of 
Reason." ) 

"If it was worth God's while to make a revelation to 
man at all, it was certainly worth his while to see to it that 
it was correctly made. He would not have allowed the ideas 
and mistakes of pretended prophets and designing priests 
to become so mingled with the original text that it is im- 
possible to tell where he ceased and where the priests and 
prophets began. Neither will it do to say that God adapted 
his revelation to the prejudices of mankind. Of course it 
was necessary for an infinite being to adapt his revelatiou 


to the intellectual capacity of man; but why should God 
confirm a barbarian in his prejudices? Why should he 
fortify a heathen in hi*' crimes? If a revelation is of any 
importance whatever, it is to eradicate prejudices from the 
human mind. It should be a lever with which to raise the 
human race. Theologians have exliausted their ingenuity 
in finding excuses for God. It seems to me that they would 
be better employed in finding excuses for men. They tell 
us that the Jews were so cruel and ignorant that God was 
compelled to justify, or nearly to justify, many of their 
crimes, in order to have any influence with them whatever. 
They tell us that if he had declared slavery and polygamy 
to be criminal, the Jews would have refused to receive the 
ten commandments. They insist that, under the circum- 
stances, God did the best he could; that his real intention 
was to lead them along slowly, step by step, so that, in a 
few hundred years they would be induced to admit that it 
was hardly fair to steal a babe from its mother's breast. It 
has always seenied reasonable that an infinite God ought 
to have been able to make man grand enough to know, even 
without a special revelation, that it is not altogether right 
to steal the labor, or the wife, or the child of another. When 
the whole question is thoroughly examined, the world will 
find that Jehovah had the prejudices, the hatreds, and su- 
perstitions of his day. 

"If there is anything of value, it is liberty. Liberty is 
the air of the soul, the sunshine of life. Without it the world 
is a prison and the universe an infinite dungeon. 

"If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future. Be- 
fore him, like a panorama, moved the history yet to be. He 
knew exactly how his words would be interpreted. He knew 
what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be com- 
mitted in his name. He knew that the fires of persecu- 
tion would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. 
He knew that brave men would languish in dungeons, in 
darkness, filled with pain ; that the church would use the in- 
struments of torture, and that his fo^owers would appeal 


to whip and chain. He must have seen the horizon of the 
future red with the flames of the auto da fe. He knew all 
the creeds that would spring like poisoned fungi from every 
text. He saw the sects waging war against each other. He 
saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building 
dungeons for their fellow men. He saw them using instru- 
ments of pain. He heard the groans, saw the faces white 
with agony, the tears, the blood— heard the shrieks and 
sobs of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew 
that commentaries would be written on his words with 
swords, to be read by the light of faggots. He knew that 
the Inquisition would be born of teachings attributed to 
him. He saw all the interpolations and falsehoods that 
hypocrisy would write and tell. He knew that above these 
fields of death, these dungeons, these burnings, for a thou- 
sand years would float the dripping banner of the cross. 
He knew that in his name his followers would trade in hu- 
man flesh, that cradles would be robbed, and woman's 
breasts unbabed for gold, and yet he died with voiceless 
lips. Why did he fail to speak ? Why did he not tell his 
disciples, and through them the world, that man should not 
persecute, for opinion's sake, his fellow man? Why did he 
not cry, You shall not persecute in my name ; you shall not 
burn and torment those who differ from you in creed ? Why 
did he not plainly say, I am the Son of God ? Why did he 
not explain the doctrine of the trinity ? Why did he not tell 
the manner of baptism that was pleasing to him ? Why did 
he not say something positive, definite, and satisfactory 
about another world ? Why did he not turn the tear-stained 
hope of heaven to the glad knowledge of another life? Why 
did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery 
and to doubt? 

"You may ask. And what of all this? I reply, As with 
everything in nature, so with the Bible. It has a different 
story for each reader. Is, then, the Bible a different book 
to every human being who rends it? It is. Can God, 
through the Bible, •nake precisely the same revelation to 


two persons? He cannot. Why? Because the man who 
reads is not inspired. God should inspire readers as well as 

"You may reply: God knew that his book would be 
understood differently by each one, and intended that it 
should be understood as it is understood by each. If this is 
so, then my understanding of the Bible is the real revelation 
to me. If this is so, I have no right to take the understand- 
ing of another. I must take the revelation made to me 
through my understanding, and by that revelation I must 
stand. Suppose, then, that I read this Bible honestly, 
fairly, and when I get through am compelled to say, 
'The book is not true.' If this is the honest result, then 
you are compelled to say, either that God has made no reve- 
lation to me, or that the revelation that it is not true is the 
revelation made to me, and by which I am bound. If the 
book and my brain are both the work of the same infinite 
God, whose fault is it that the book and the brain do not 
agree? Either God should have written a book to fit my 
brain, or should have made my brain to fit his book. The 
inspiration of the Bible depends upon the credulity of him 
who reads. There was a time when its geology, its astron- 
omy, its natural history, were thought to be inspired : that 
time has passed. There was a time when its morality satis- 
fied the men who ruled the world of thought : that time has 

"These are the passages that have liberated woman! 
"According to the Old Testament, woman had to ask 
pardon, and had to be purified, for the crime of having 
borne sons and daughters. If in this world there is a figure 
of perfect purity, it is a mother holding in her thrilled and 
happy arms her child. The doctrine that the woman is the 
slave, or serf, of man — whether it comes from heaven or 
from hell, from God or a demon, from the golden streets of 
the New Jerusalem or from the very Sodom of perdition-4s 
savagery, pure and simple. 


"In no country in the world had women less hberty 
than in the Holy Land, and no monarch held in less es- 
teem the rights of wives and mothers than Jehovah of the 
Jews. The position of woman was far better in Egypt than 
in Palestine. Before the pj^ramids were built, the sacred ^^ 
songs of Isis were sung by women, and women with pure ^ 
hands had offered sacrifices to the gods. Before Moses was^'L 
born, women had sat upon the Egyptian throne. Upon an- - 
cient tombs the husband and wife are represented as seated 
in the same chair. In Persia women were priests, and in 
some of the oldest civilizations 'they were reverenced on 
earth, and worshiped afterward as goddesses in heaven.' 
At the advent of Christianity, in all Pagan countries women 
officiated at the sacred altars. They guarded the eternal 
fire. They kept the sacred books. From their lips came 
the oracles of fate. Under the domination of the Christian 
church, woman became the merest slave for at least a thou- 
sand years. It was claimed that through woman the race 
had fallen, and that her loving kiss had poisoned all the 
springs of life. Christian priests asserted that but for her 
crime the world would have been an Eden still. The ancient 
fathers exhausted their eloquence in the denunciation of 
woman, and repeated again and again the slander of St. 
Paul. The condition of woman has improved just in pro- 
portion that man has lost confidence in the inspiration of 
the Bible. 

''The old argument that if Christianity is a human fab- 
rication its authors must have been either good men or bad 
men, takes it for granted that there are but two classes of 
persons — the good and the bad. There is, at least, one 
other class— the mistaken, and both of the other classes 
may belong to this. Thousands of most excellent people 
have been deceived, and the history of the world is filled 
with instances where men have honestly supposed that they 
had received communications from angels and gods." (In- 
gersoU's Reply to Black.) 


"But an infinite being must know not only the real 
meaning of the words^ but the exact meaning they will 
convey to every reader and hearer. He must know every 
meaning that they are capable of conveying to every mind. 
He must also know what explanations must be made to 
prevent misconception. If an infinite being cannot, in mak- 
ing a revelation to man, use such words that every person 
to whom a revelation is essential, will understand distinctly 
what that revelation is, then a revelation from God, through 
the instrumentality of language is impossible, or it is not 
essential that all should understand it correctly. 

''After all, the real question is, not whether the Bible is 
inspired, but whether it is true. 11 it is true, it does not 
need to be inspired. If it is true, it makes no difference 
whether it was written by a man or a god. The multiplica- 
tion table is just as useful, just as true as though God had 
arranged the figures himself. If the Bible is really true, the 
claim of inspiration need not be urged ; and if it is not true, 
its inspiration can hardly be established. As a matter of 
fact, the truth does not need to be inspired. Nothing needs 
inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake." (Ingersoll's 
Mistakes of Moses," p. 59.) 

It may be argued that millions have not the capacity 
to understand a revelation, although expressed in plainest 
words. To this it seems a sufficient reply, to ask, why a 
being of infinite power should create men so devoid of intelli- 
gence, that he cannot by any means make known to them 
his wiU?" (Ingersoll's "Mistakes of Moses," p. 90.) 

" Millions have declared this book to be infinitely holy, 
to prove that they were right have imprisoned, robbed and 
burned their fellow men. The inspiration of this book has 
been established by famine, sword, and fire, by dungeon, 
chain, and whip, by dagger and by rack, by force and fear 
and fraud, and generations have been frightened by threats 
of hell, and bribed with promises of heaven. 

"Had we been born in Turkey, most of us would have 
been Mohammedans and believed in the inspiration of the 


Koran. We should have beheved that Mohammed actually 
visited heaven and became acquainted with an angel by the 
name of Gabriel who was so broad between the eyes that it 
required three hundred days for a very smart mule to travel 
the distance. If some man had denied this story we should 
have denounced him as a dangerous person, one who was 
endeavoring to undermine the foundations of society, and 
to destroy all distinctions between virtue and vice. We 
should have said to him ' What do you propose to give us 
in place of this angel? AVe cannot afford to give up an an- 
gel of that size for nothing.' We would have insisted that 
the wisest and best men believed the Koran." (Ingersoll's 
"Mistakes of Moses," p. 36.) 

The Pentateuch. 

"The Pentateuch is aflBrmed to have been written by 
Moses under the influence of divine inspiration. Considered 
thus a record vouchsafed and dictated by the Almighty, it 
commands not only scientific but universal consent. 

" But here in the first place it may be demanded, who or 
what is it that has put forth this great claim in its behalf? 

" Not the work itself. It nowhere claims the authorship 
of one man, or makes the impious declaration that it is the 
writing of Almighty God." (Draper's "Conflict Between Re- 
hgion and Science." 

The Bible Not Inspired. 

1. The Bible is full of errors : 

" In 1847, the American Bible Society appointed a com- 
mittee of its members to prepare a standard edition of King- 
James's version, free from typographical errors. They pre- 
pared such an edition, correcting, as they stated, twent3^- 
four thousand errors; but alarmed at the attacks made 
upon it, it was withdrawn ; and the American Bible Society 
continues to this day to circulate for the word of God a 
book having in it twenty-four thousand acknowledged er- 
rors." ("Common Sense Thoughts on the Bible," Wm. 

god's ways are not our WATS. 141 

2. The Bible sanctions cruelties. The wars of extermin- 
ation waged by the Jews upon surrounding nations afford 
ample proof. ^ 

3. The Bible indorses immorality. It indorses war, 
slavery, polygamy, intemperance, and superstition. 

4. The writers of the gospels do not claim to be inspired. 

5. We do not know when, where, or by whom, either the 
gospels or the books supposed to be written by Moses, were 

/^^6. Paul says : "All scripture is given by inspiration of 
God; but there is (1.) no definite meaning attached to the 
word inspiration. (2.) He does not refer to the gospels for 
they had no existence when h« wrote. 

7. Inspiration is not a success. There are a thousand 
different sects quarreling about the meaning of the ** in- 
spired scriptures." 

8. Inspiration should be pure. The Bible abounds in 

9. The Bible undergoes revisions, improvements, etc. 
An infallible book cannot be improved. 

10. The Bible has no plan or system, and hence has no 
definite object. Millions upon millions of Christians have 
differed regarding its teachings. 

11. The Bible is a fetich. Millions of people have a slav- 
ish regard for the Holy Bible who have little or no respect 
for Humanity, Truth, or Justice. 

God's Ways are Not Our "Ways. 
"Now this God either did or he did not believe in and 
command murder and rapine in the days when he used to 
sit around evenings and chat with Abraham and Moses and 
the rest of them. His especial plans and desires were 're- 
vealed' or they were not. The ideas of justice and right 
were higher in those days than they are now, or else we are 
wiser and better than God, or else the Bible is not his re- 
vealed will. You can take your choice. My choice is to keep 
my respect for divine justice and honor, and let the Bible 
bear the burden of its own mistakes. 


"If religion is a reyelatioD, then it is not a growth, and 
it wonM have been most perfect in design and plan when it 
was nearest its birth. Now accepting the Bible theory of 
Johovah, we find that when the communications of God 
were immediate and personal there could have been no mis- 
take as to his will. To deal with it as a growth or evolution 
toward better thinsis is to abandon the whole tenet of a 
revealed law of God. But to deal with it as a revelation is 
to make God a being too repulsive and brutal to contem- 
plate for one moment with respect. 

"He either did or did not tell those men those things. 
Which will you accept? " (Helen Gardener's " Men, Women, 
and Gods." ) 

"Revelation when applied to religion, means something 
communicated immediately from God to man. No one 
will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make 
such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for 
the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a 
certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is 
revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a sec- 
ond person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and 
so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is 
a revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every 
other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it. 

"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call any- 
thing a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either 
verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to 
the first communication— after this, it is only an account 
of something which that person says was a revelation made 
to him ; and though he may find himself obliged to believe 
it, it cannot be incumbent upon me to believe it in the 
same manner ; for it was not a revelation made to me, and 
I have only his word for it that it was made to him. 

" When I am told that the Koran was written in heaven, 
and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes 
too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second- 


hand authority as the former.* I uid not see the angel 
myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believvi it. 

" When also I am fold that a v oman called the Virgin 
Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without 
any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed hus- 
band, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right 
to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a 
much stronger evidence than their bare word for it ; but we 
have not even this— for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote 
any such matter themselves ; it is only reported by others 
that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not 
choose to rest my behef upon such evidence. 

"It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit 
/ that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of 
God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still 
some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythol- 
ogy had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. 
Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the 
heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of 
their gods. It was not a new thing at that time, to believe 
a man to have been celestially begotten ; the intercourse of 
gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. 
Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited 
with hundreds ; the story therefore had nothing in it either 
new, wonderful, or obscene ; it was conformable to the opin- 
ions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, 
or Mythologists, and it was those people only that be^^eved 
it. The Jew^s who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, 
-and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen 
mythology, never credited the story. 

"It is curious to observe how the theory of what is 
called the Christian church, sprung out of the tail of 
heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in 
the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be ce- 
lestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed 

* Referring to the story of Moses receiving the two tables of 

commandments. See page 134. 


was no other than a reduction of the former pluraUty, which 
was about twenty or thirty thousand ; the statue of Mary 
succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus, the deification of 
heroes changed into the canonization of saints ; the mythol- 
ogists had gods for everything ; the Christian mythologists 
had saints for everything; the church became as crowded 
with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other ; and 
Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is Uttle 
else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accom- 
modated to the purposes of power and revenue ; and it yet 
remains to reason and philosophy to abohsh the amphib- 
ious fraud. 

"Nothing that is here said can apply even with the 
most distant disrespect, to the rea7 character of Jesus Christ. 
He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that 
he preached and practiced was of the most benovolent kind ; 
and though similar systems of morality had been preached 
by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many 
years before ; by the Quakers since ; and by many good men 
in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any. 

"Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, 
parentage, or anything else ; not a line of what is called the 
New Testament is of his own writing. The history of him 
is altogether the work of other people; and as to the ac- 
count given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the 
necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His histo- 
rians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural 
manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same 
maimer, or the first part of the story must have fallen to 
the ground. 

" The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was 
not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the 
tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that 
though they might not be credited, they could not be de- 
tected." (Thomas Paine's " Age of Reason.") 



God is Satisfied with his "Works. 

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold 
it wa8 very good. (Gen. 1 : 31.) 

Jj^ God is Dissatisfied with his Works. 

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the 
earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Gen. 6:6.) 

God Dwells in Chosen Temples. 

And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said 
unto him : I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this 
place to myself for a house of sacrifice. . . . For now 
have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may 
be there forever : and mine eyes and my heart shall be there 
perpetually. (2 Chr. 7: 12, 16.) 

God Dwells Not in Temples, 

Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made 
with hands. (Acts 7: 48.) 

God Dwells in Light. 

Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto. 

(ITim. 6: 16.) 

God Dwells in Darkness. 

The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. 
(1 Kings 8: 12.) 



He made darkness his secret place. (Ps. 18 : 11.) 
Clouds and darkness are round about him. (Ps. 97 : 2.) 

God is Seen and Heard. 

And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my 
back parts. (Ex.33: 23.) 

And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man 
speaketh unto his friend. (Ex. 33 : 11.) 

And the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, 
Where art thou? And he said I heard thy voice in the 
garden, and I was afraid. (Gen. 3 : 9, 10.) 

For I have seen God face to face, and my life is pre- 
served. (Gen. 32: 30.) 

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw, also, the Lord 
sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. (Is. 6 : 1.) 

Tlien went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 
seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of 
Israel. . . . They saw God, and did eat and drink. (Ex. 
24: 9,10,11.) 

God is Invisible and Cannot be Heard. 

No man hath seen God at any time. (John 1 : 18.) 

Ye have neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seen 
his shape. (John 5: 37.) 

And he said, thou canst not see my face ; for there shall 
no man see me and live. (Ex. 33 : 20.) 

God is Tired and Rests. 

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and 
on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Ex. 
31: 17.) 

I am weary with repenting. (Jer. 15 : 6.) 

Thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities. (Is. 43: 24.) 

God is Never Tired and Never Rests. 

Hast thou never heard that the everlastiDg God, the 
Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, 
never is weary? (Is. 40: 28.) 


God is Omnipresent, Sees and Knows all Things. 

The eyes of the Lord^re in every place. (Prov. 15 : 3.) 
Whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up 
into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, 
behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, 
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall 
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. (Ps. 
139: 7-10.) 

There is no darkness nor shadow of death where the 
workers of iniquity may hide themselves. For his eyes are 
upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings. (Job 
34: 22,21.) 

God is Not Omnipresent, Neither Sees nor Knows all Things. 

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower. 
(Gen. 11: 5.) 

And the Lord said. Because the cry of Sodom and 
Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievious, I 
mil go down now and see whether they have done alto- 
gether according to the cry of it, w^hich is come unto me ; 
and, if not, I will know. (Gen. 18 : 20, 21.) 

And Adam and his mfe hid themselves from the presence 
of the Lord God, amongst the trees of the garden. (Gen. 
3: 8.) 

God Knows the Hearts of Men. 

Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men. (Acts 
1: 24.) 

Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; 
thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest 
my path and mj lying down, and art acquainted with all 
my ways. (Ps. 139: 2,3.) 

For he knoweth the secrets of the heart. (Ps. 44: 21.) 

,' < 

•^ God Tries Men to Find^ut what is in their Hearts. 

The Lord, your God, proveth you, to know whether ye 
love the Lord your God, with all your heart and with all 
your soul. (Deut. 13: 3.) 



The Lord thy God led thee these forty 3^ears in the 
wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know 
what was in thy heart. (Deut. 8:2.) 

For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 
22: 12.) ' 

God is All-PowerfuL 

Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh ; is there any- 
thing too hard for me ? . . . There is nothing too hard 
for thee. (Jer. 32: 27,17.) 

With God all things are possible. (Mat. 19 : 26.) 
God is Not All-Powerful. 

And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the 
inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the 
inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. 
(Judges 1 : 19.) 

God is Unchangeable. 

With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turn- 
ing. (James 1: 17.) 

For I am the Lord ; I change not. (Mai. 3 : 6.) 

I, the Lord, have spoken it ; it shall come to pass, and I 
will do it. I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither 
w^illl repent. (Ezekiel 24: 14.) 

God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of 
man that he should repent. (Num. 23 : 19.) 

God is Changeable. 

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the 
earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (Gen. G : 6.) 

And God saw their works, that th(\y turned from their 
evil way; and God repented of tlie evil that he had said that, 
he would do unto them, and he did it not. (Jonah 3 : 10.) 

Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said ind(?ed, 
that thy house, and the hou«^ of thy father, should walk 
before me forever; but now the Lord Haith, Be it far from 
me. . . . Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine 
arm, and the arm of thy father's house. (1 Sam. 2 : 30, 31.) 


In those days was Hezokiali sick unto death. And the 
prophet Isaiahj the son of Amoz, came to him, and said 
unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order; for 

thou shalt die, and not hve And it came to 

pass afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that 
the word of the Lord came unto him, saying. Turn again 
and tell Hezekiah, the captain of my people, Thus saith the 
Lord, ... I have heard thy prayer, . . . and I will 
add unto thy days, fifteen years. (2 Kings 20: 1, 4, 5, 6.) 

And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart and go up hence, 
thou and the people. . . . For I will not go up in the 
midst of thee. . . . And the Lord said unto Moses, I will 
do this thing, also, that thou hast spoken. . . . My 
presence shajll go with thee, and I will give thee rest. (Ex. 
33 : 1, 3, 17, 14.) 

God is Just and Impartial. 

The Lord is upright, . . . and there is no unright- 
eousness in him. (Ps. 92 : 15.) 

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen. 
IS: 25.) 

A God of truth, and without iniquity, just and right is 
he. (Deut. 32:4.) 

There is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 2 : 11.) 

Ye say the way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, 
house of Israel; is not my way equal? (Ezek. 18: 25.) 

He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and 
widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and rai- 
ment. Love ye, therefore, the stranger. (Deut. 10 : 18, 19.) 

God is Unjust and Partial. 

Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be 
unto his brethren. (Gen. 9:25.) 

For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the 
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and 
fourth generation . ( Ex . 2 : 5 . ) 

For the children being not yet born, neither having done 
any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to 



election, might stand, ... it was said unto her, The 
elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I 
loved, but Esau have I hated. (Rom. 9 : 11, 12, 13.) 

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall 
have more abundance ; but whosoever hath not, from him 
^ shall be taken away even that he hath. (Mat. 13, 12.) 

Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself; thou 
shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he 
may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien. (Deut. 
14: 21.) 

And David spake unto the Lord when he saw the angel 
that smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I 
have done wickedly ; but these sheep, what have they done? 
(2 Sam. 24: 17.) 

God is Not the Author of Evil. 

The law of the Lord is perfect. . . . The statutes of 
the Lord are right. . . . The commandment of the Lord 
is pure. (Ps. 19: 7,8.) 

God is not the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14: 33.) 

A God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is 
he. (Deut. 32:4.) 

For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth 
he any man. (James 1 : 13.) 

God is the Author of Evil. 

Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil 
and good? (Lam. 3: 38.) 

Thus saith the Lord, Behold I frame evil against you 
and devise a device against you. (Jer. 18 : 11.) 

I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these 
things. (Is. 45: 7.) 

Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done 
it? (Amos 3: 6.) 

Therefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, 
nnd judgments whereby they should not live. (Ezek. 
20: 25.) 


God Gives Freely to those who Ask. 

If any of you lack Av^sdom, let him ask God, that giveth 
to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall bo 
given him. (James 1:5.) 

For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seek- 
eth findeth. (Luke 11 : 10.) 

God Withholds his Blessings and Prevents their Reception. 

He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart 
that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand 
with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 
(eTohnl2: 40.) 

For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they 
should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy 
them utterly, and that they might have no favor. (Josh. 
11: 20.) 

Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways 
and hardened our heart? (Is. 63 : 17.) 

God is to be Foiand by Those who Seek him. 
Every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh 
findeth. (Mat. 7: 8.) 

Those that seek me early shall find me. (Prov. 8 : 17.) 

God is Not to be Found by Those who Seek him. 

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they 
shall seek me early, but shall not find me. (Prov. 1 : 28.) 

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine 
eyes from you ; yea, when ye make many prayers I will not 
hear. (Is. 1: 15.) 

■ They cried, but there was none to save them ; even unto 
the Lord, but he answered them not. (Ps. 18 : 41.) 

God is Peaceful. 

The God of peace. (Eom. 15 : 33.) 

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. 

(1 Cor. 14: 33.) 

God is "Warlike. 

The Lord is a man of war. (Ex. 15 : 3.) 


The Lord of Hosts is his name. (Is. 51 : 15.) 
Blessed be the Lord, my strength, which teacheth my 
hands to war and my fingers to fight. (Ps. 144 : 1.) 

God is Kind, Merciful, and Good. 

The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy. (James 
5: 11.) 

For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children 
of men. (Lam. 3: 33.) 

For his mercy endureth forever. (1 Chron. 16: 34.) 

I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith 
the Lord God. (Ezek. 18 : 32.) 

The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over 
all his works. (Ps. 145 : 9.) 

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto 
the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:4.) 

God is love. (1 John 4 : 16.) 

Good and upright is the Lord. (Ps. 25 : 8.) 

God is Cruel, Unmercilul, Destructive, and Ferocious. 

I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy 
them. (Jer. 13: 14.) 

And thou slialt consume all the people which the Lord 
thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity 
upon them. (Deut. 7: 16.) 

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that 
they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and 
woman, infant and suckling. (1 Sam. 15 : 2, 3.) 

Because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even 
he smote of the people fifty thousand, and three score and 
ten men. (1 Sam. 6: 19.) 

The Lord thy God is a consuming fire. (Deut. 4 : 24.) 

The Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon 
them, . . and they died. (Josh. 10: 11.) 

God's Anger is Slow, and Endures but for a Moment. 
The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and 
plenteous in mercy. (Ps. 103 : 8.) 


His anger enduretli but a moment. (Ps. 30 : 5.) 
God's Anger is Fierce, Frequent, and Endures Long. 

And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and 
ho made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all 
the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord 
was consumed. (Num.32: 13.) 

And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads 
of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against 
the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned 
away from Israel. (Num. 25: 4.) 

For ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall 
burn forever. (Jer. 17: 4.) 

God is angry I'^witb the wicked,'' interpolated by the 
translators] every day. (Ps. 7: 11.) 

And the Lord met him and sought to kill him. (Ex. 4: 24.) 

God Commands, Approves of, and Delights in Burnt Offerings, 

Sacrifices, and Holj Days. 

Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering 
for atonement. (Ex. 29:36.) 

On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a 
day of atonement ; it shall be a holy convocation unto you, 
and ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by 
fire unto the Lord. (Lev. 23 : 27.) 

And thou shalt burn the whole ram npon the altar; 
. . . it is a sweet savor; an offering made by fire unto 
the Lord. (Ex. 29: 18.) 

And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt 

sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto 

the Lord. (Lev. 1:9.) 

God Disapproves of, and has no Pleasure in. Burnt Offerings, 

Sacrifices, and Holy Days. 

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded 
them in the day that I brought them out of the land of 
Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. (Jer. 7 : 22.) 

Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacri- 
fices sweet unto me. (Jer. 6 : 20.) 


Yvlll I eat of the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of 
goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows 
unto the Most High. (Psalm 50 : 13, 14.) 

Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomina- 
tion unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of 
assembhes I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the 
solemn meeting. . . . To v;hat purpose is the multitude 
of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. I am full of the 
burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I 
delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he 
goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath 
required this at your hand? (Is. 1 : 13, 11, 12.) 

God Forbids Human Sacrifice. 
Take heed toiihyself that thou be not snared by following 
tliem [the Gentile nations ;] . . . for every abomination 
to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their 
gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they 
burnt in the fire to their gods. (Dent. 12 : 30, 31.) 
God CommandD and Accepts Human Sacrifices. 

No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord 
of all that he hath, both of man and of beast, and of the 
field of his possession, shall bo sold or redeemed; every 
devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, 
which shall bo devoted of men, shall bo redeemed, but shall 
surely be put to death. (Lev. 27 : 28, 29.) 

The king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah, . . . 
and the five sons of Michael; . . . and he delivered 
them into the hands of the Gibeouites, and they hanged 
them in the hill before the Lord. . . . And after that God 
was entreated for the land. (2 Sam. 21 : 8, 9, 14.) 

And he [God] said, Take now thy son, thine only son 
Isaac, whom thou lovest, and got theo into the land of 
Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering. (Gen. 

22: 2.) 

And Jephthali vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If 
thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Araraon into 


my bauds, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of 
the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace 
from the children of Ammon, shall surelj'' be the Lord's, and 
I will offer it up for a btlrnt offering. So Jephthah passed 
over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them ; 
and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And 
Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house and behold, his 
daughter came out to meet liim. . . . And he sent her 
away for two months ; and she went with her companions 
and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it 
came to pass at the end of two months that she returned 
imto her father, who did according to his vow which he had 
vowed. (Judges 11 : 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39.) 

God Tempts No Man. 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of 
God ; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth 
he any man. (James 1 : 13.) 

God Does Tempt Men. 

And it came to pass after these things that God did 
tempt Abraham. (Gen. 22: 1.) 

And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against 
Israel, and he moved David against them to say. Go num- 
ber Israel and Judah. (2 Sam. 24: 1.) 

And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my 
servant Job, that there is none hke him in the earth, a 
perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and 
escheweth evil? And still he holdeth fast his integrity, 
although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him 
without cause. (Job. 2:3.) 

Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived, 
[marginal reading, enticed.] (Jer. 20: 7.) 

Lead us not into temptation. (Mat. 6 : 13.) 

God Cannot Lie. 

God is not a man, that he should lie. (Num. 23 : 19.) 
It was impossible for God to lie. (Heb. 6 : 18.) 



God Lies ; He Sends Forth Lying Spirits to Deceive. 

Ah, Lord God ! surely thou hast greatly deceived this 

people. (Jer. 4: 10.) 

Wilt thou be altogether unto me as a liar? (Jer. 14 : 18.) 
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, 

that they should believe a lie. (2 Thes. 2 : 11.) 

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit 

in the' mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath 

spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 22: 23.) 
Then God sent an evil spirit. (Judges 9 : 23.) 
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a 

thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. (Ezek. 14: 9.) 

Because of Man's "Wickedness God Destroys him. 

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in 
the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of 
his heart was only evil continually. . . . And the Lord 
said, I will destroy man whom I have created. (Gen. 6 : 
5, 7.) 

Because of Man's Wickedness God will Not Destroy him. 

And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse 
the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination 
of man's heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again 
smite any more every living thing. (Gen. 8 : 21.) 

God's Attributes are Revealed in his Works. 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of tho 

world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 

are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. (Rom. 

1: 20.) 

God's Attributes Cannot be Discovered. 

Canst thou, by searching, find out God? (Job. 11: 7.) 
There is no searching of his understanding. (Is. 40 : 28.) 

There is but One God. 

The Lord our God is one Lord. (Deut. 6:4.) 
There is none other God but one. (1 Cor. 8 : 4.) 


There is a Plurality of Gods. 

And God said, Let us make man in our image. (Gen. 
1: 2C.) 

And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as 
one of us. (Gen. 3:22.) 

And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the 
plains of Mamre. . . . And he lifted up his eyes and 
looked, and lo, three men stood by him; and when he saw 
them he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed 
himself toward the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I 
have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, 
from thy servant. (Gen. 18 : 1, 2, 3.) 

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. (1 John 5 : 7.) 



Robbery Commanded. 

When ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman 
shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in 
her house. Jewels of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment; 
and ye shall put them upon your sons and upon your 
daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 3: 
21, 22.) 

And they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, 
and jewels of gold, and raiment. . . . And they spoiled 
the Egyptians. (Ex. 12 : 35, 36.) 

Robbery Forbidden. 

ThoTl shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him. 
(Lev. 19: 13.) 

Thou Shalt not steal. (Ex. 20: 15.) 

Lying Commanded, Approved, and Sanctioned. 

And the Lord said unto Samuel, ... I will send thee 
to Jesse, the Bethlemite; for I have provided mo a king 
among his sons. And Samuel said. How can I go? If Saul 


hear it lie will kill me. And the Lord said, Take a heifer 
with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. 
(ISam. 16: 1,2.) 

And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid 
them and said thus : There came men unto me, but I wist 
not whence they Avere ; and it came to pass about the time 
of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went 
out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them 
quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought 
them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the 
stalks of flax. (Josh. 2: 4, 5, G.) 

Was not Rahab, the harlot, just Wed by works, when 
she had received the messengers, and had them sent out 
another way? (James 2: 25.) 

And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said 
unto them. Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the 
men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharoah, 
Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women ; 
for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come 
in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives. 
(Ex.1: 18-20.) 

And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the 
Lord, and said, I will persuade him. . . I will go forth and 
will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And 
he said. Thou shait persuade him and prevail also; go forth 
and do so. (1 Kings 22 : 21, 22.) 

Ye shall know my breach of promise. (Num. 14 : 34.) 

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through 
my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 
(Rom. 3: 7.) 

Being crafty, I caught you with guile. (2 Cor. 12 : 16.) 

Lying Forbidden. 

Thou shalt not bear false witness. (Ex. 20 : 16.) 
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. (Pro v. 

12: 22.) 

All liars shall have their part in the lake which bumeth 

with fire and brimstone. (Rev. 21 : 8.) 


Killing Commanded and Sanctioned. 

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his 
sword by his side, and^go in and out from gate to gate 
throughout the camp, and shiy every man his brother, and 
every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. 
(Ex. 32: 27.) 

So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab. 
. . . And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast 
done Avell in executing that wdiich is right in mine eyes, and 
hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was 
in my heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit 
on the throne of Israel. (2 Kings 10 : 11, 30.) 

Killing Forbidden. 

Thou Shalt not kill. (Ex. 20 : 13.) 
No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 
3: 15.) , 

The Blood-Shedder Must Die. 
At the hand of every man's brother will I require the 
life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed. (Gen. 9: 5, 6.) 

The Blood-Shedder Must INTot Die. 

And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding 
him should kill him. (Gen. 4: 15.) 

The Making of Images Forbidden. 

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or 
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is 
in the earth beneath. (Ex. 20:4.) 

The Making of Images Com.inanded. 
Thou shalt make tr\vo cherubims of gold. . . . And 
the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, cover- 
ing the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall 
look one to another. (Ex. 25 : 18, 20.) 

Slavery and Oppression Ordained. 
Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be 
unto his brethren. (Gen. 9: 25.) 


Of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among 
you, of them shall ye buy. . . . They shall bo your 
bondmen forever; but over your brethren, the children of 
Israel, ye shall not rule with rigor. (Lev. 25 : 45, 46.) 

I will sell your sons and daughters into the hands of 

the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the 

Sabeans, to a people afar off; for the Lord hath spoken it. 

(Joel 3: 8.) 

Slavery and Oppression Forbidden. 

Undo the heavy burdens. . . . Let the oppressed go 
free, . . . break every yoke. (Is. 58: 6.) 

Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him. 
(Ex.22: 21.) 

Ho that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Ex. 

Neither be ye called masters. (Mat. 23: 10.) 

Improvidence Enjoined. 

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil 
not, neither do they spin. ... If God so clothe the grass 
of the field . . . shall he not much more clothe you? 
. . . Therefore, take no thought, saying. What shall we 
eat? or what shall we drink? or wherewithal shall we be 
clothed? . . . Take, therefore, no thought for the 
morrow. (Mat. 6 : 28, 30, 31, 34.) 

Give to every man that asketli of thee, and of him that 
taketh away thy goods, ask them not again. . . . And 
lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be 
great. (Luke 6: 30,35.) 

Sell that ye have and give alms. (Luke 12: 33.) 

Improvidence Condemned. 

But if any provide not for his own, especially for those 
of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than 
an infidel. (ITim. 5: 8.) 

A good man leavcth an inheritance to liis children's 
children. (Prov. 13: 22.) 


Anger Approved. 
Be ye angry and sin not. (Eph. 4: 26.) 
And he [Elisha] turned back and ItDoked on them and 
cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth 
two she-bears out of the wood and tare forty and two chil- 
dren of them. (2 Kings 2: 24.) 

And when he had looked round about on them with 
anger, ... he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy 
hand. (Mark 3:5.) 

Anger Disapproved. 

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry ; for anger rest- 
eth in the bosom of fools. (Eccl. 7:9.) 

Make no friendship with an angry man. ( Pro v. 22 : 24.) 

The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. 
(James 1: 20.) 

Good "Works to be Seen of Men. 

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see 
your good works. (Mat. 5: 16.) 

Good "Works Not to be Seen of Men. 

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be 
seen of them. (Mat. 6: 1.) 

Judging of Others Forbidden. 

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judg- 
ment ye judge, ye shall be judged, (Mat. 7: 1, 2.) 

Judging of Others Approved. 

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world ? 
And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to 
judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall 
•judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this 
life? If, then, ye have judgments of things pertaining to 
this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the 
church. (ICor. 6: 2,3,4.) 

Do not ye judge them that are within? (1 Cor. 5: 12.) 

Jesus Taught Non-Resistance. 

Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the 

right cheek, turn him the other also. (Mat. 5 : 39.) 


All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 
(Mat. 26: 52.) 

Jesus Taught and Practiced Physical Resistance. 

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and 
uuy one. (Luke 22: 36.) 

And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove 
them all out of the temple. (John 2 : 15.) 

Jesus "Warned his Followers M"ot to Fear Being Killed. 
Be not afraid of them that kill the body. (Luke 12 : 4.) 

Jesus Himself Avoided the Jews for Fear of Being killed. 

After these things Jesus walked in Gahlee ; for he would 
not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. 
(John 7: 1.) 

Public Prayer Sanctioned. 

And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord, in the 
presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth 
his hands toward heaven. [Then follows the prayer.] And 
it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying 
all his prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from 
before the altar of the Lord, from kneehng on his knees, with 
his hands spread up to heaven. . . . And the Lord said 
unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication 
that thou hast made before me. (1 Kings 8 : 22, 54, and 

9: 3.) 

Public Prayer Disapproved. 

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites 
are ; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and 
in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. 
. . . But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, 
and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which 
is in secret. (Mat. 6: 5, 6.) 

Importunity in Prayer Commended. 
Because this widow troubleth mo, I will avenge her, lest 
by her continual coming she weary me. . . . And shall 


not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto 
him? (Luke 18: 5, 7.) 

Because of his ii»portunity he will rise, and give him as 
many as he needeth. (Luke 11: 8.) 

Importunity in Prayer Condemned. 

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the 
heathen do ; for they think that they shall be heard for their 
much speaking. Be ye not therefore like unto them; for 
your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye 
ask him. (Mat. 6: 7, 8.) 

The Wearing of Long Hair by Men Sanctioned. 

And no razor shall come on his head ; for the child shall 
be a Nazarite unto God fi'om the womb. (Judges 13 : 5.) 

All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no 

razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled in the 

which he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy, 

and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. (Num. 

6: 5.) 

The Wearing of Long Hair by Men Condemned. 

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man 
have long hair, it is a shame unto him ? (1 Cor. 11 : 14.) 

Circumcision Instituted. 

This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and 
you and thy seed after thee : Every man child among you 
whall be circumcised. (Gen. 17: 10.) 

Circumcision Condemned. 

Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing. (Gal. 5: 2.) 

The Sabbath Instituted. 
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. 
(Gen. 2: 3.) 

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 20 : 8.) 

The Sabbath Repudiated. 
The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, 
I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (Is. 1 : 13.) 


One man esteemeth one day above another; another 
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per- 
suaded in his own mind. (Rom. 14 : 5.) 

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or 
in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon; or of the 
;,abbath days. (Col. 2 : 16.) 

Tlic Sabbath Instituted because God Kested the Seventh Day. 
For in six da.ys the Lord made heaven and earth, the 
.sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; 
v» hereioro the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed 
. it. (Ex. 20: 11.) 
(^ The Sabbath Instituted for a Very Different Reason. 

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of 
Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence 
through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm ; there- 
fore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath 
day. (Deut. 5 : 15.) 

No Work to be Done on the Sabbath under Penalty of Death. 

Whosoever doetli any work in the Sabbath day, he shall 
surely be put to death. (Ex. 31 : 15.) 

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sab- 
bath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him 
without the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died ; 
as the Lord commanded Moses. (Num. 15 : 32, 36.) 
Jesus Broke the Sabbath and Justified the Act. 

Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to 
slay him because he had done these things on the Sabbath 
day. (John 5 : 16.) 

At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through 
the corn ; and his disciples were a hungered, and began to 
pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees 
saw it they said unto him. Behold, thy disciples do that 
which i.:j not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day. But ho 
said unto them, . . . Have ye not read in the law, how 
that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane 
the Sabbath, and are blameless? (Mat. 12 : 1,2, 3, 5.) 


Baptism Commanded 

Go yo therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. (Mat. 28 : Id.-f 
' y Baptism Not Commianded. 

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospel. ... I thank God that I baptized none of yon 
but Crispns and Gains. (1 Cor. 1 : 17, 14. ) 

Every Kind of Animal Allowed for Food. 

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for yon. 
(Gen. 9: 3.) 

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat. (1 Cor. 
10: 25.) 

There is nothing unclean of itself. (Rom. 14 : 14.) 

Certain Kinds of Animals Prohibited for Food. 

Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew 
the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel 
and the hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but 
divide not the hoof; therefore, they are unclean unto you. 
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not 
the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their 
flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. (Dent. 14 : 7, 8.) 

The Taking of Oaths Sanctioned. 

If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to 
bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he 
shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. 
(Num. 30: 2.) 

He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of 
truth. (Is. 65: 16.) 

Now, therefore, swear unto me here by God. . . . And 
Abraham said, I will swear. . . . There they sware both 
of them. (Gen. 21 : 23, 24, 31.) 

Because he [God] could swear by no greater, he sware 
by himself. (Heb. 6: 13.) 

And I . . . made them swear by God. (Neh. 13:25.) 


The Taking of Oaths Forbidden. 

But I say unto you, swear not at all ; neither by heaven 
for it is God's throne; nor by the earth for it is his foot- 
stool. (Mat. 5: 34.) 

Marriage Approved and Sanctioned. 

And the Lord said, It is not good that the man should 
be alone : I will make him a help-meet for him. (Gen. 2 : 18.) 

And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and 
replenish the earth. (Gen. 1 : 28.) 

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and 
shall cleave to his wife. (Mat. 19 : 5.) 

Marriage is honorable in all. (Heb. 13 : 4.) 

Marriage Disapproved. 

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. . . . For 
I [Paul] would that all men were even as I myself. ... It 
is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Cor. 7 : 1,7, 8.) 

Freedom of Divorce Permitted. 

When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it 
come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, . . . then 
let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her 
hand, and send her out of his house. (Deut. 24 : 1.) 

When thou goest out to war against thine enemies, and 
the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thy hands, and 
thou hast taken them captive, and seest among the captives 
a beautiful woman and hast a desire unto her, . . . then 
thou shalt bring her home to thy house ; . . . and after 
that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she 
shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in 
her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou 
shalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make 
merchandize of her. (Deut. 21: 10-14.) 

Divorce Restricted. 

But I say unto you, 'that whosoever shall put away his 
svlfe, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to cou)- 
m it- adultery. (Mat. 5: 32.) 


Adultery Sanctioned. 

But all the women children that have not known a man 
by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Num. 31 : 18.) 

And the Lord said unto Hosea, Go, take thee a wife of 
Avhoredoms. . . . Then said the Lord to me, Go yet, 
love a woman, beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress. . . 
. So I bought her ; . . . and I said unto her. Thou shalt 
abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, 
and thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be 
for thee. (Hosea 1 : 2, and 3 : 1, 2, 3.) 

Adultery Forbidden. 

Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Ex. 20 : 14.) 
Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Heb. 
13: 4.) 

Marriage or Cohabitation with a Sister Denounced. 

Cursed is he that lieth \s"ith his sister, the daughter of 
his father, or the daughter of his mother. (Deut. 27 : 22.) 

And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, 
or his mother's daughter, . . . it is a wicked thing. 
(Lev. 20: 17.) 

Abraham Married his Sister, and God Blessed the Union. 

And Abraham said, . . . She is my sister ; she is the 
daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; 
and she became my wife. (Gen. 20: 11, 12.) 

And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarah, thy wife, 
. . . I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her. 
(Gen. 17 : 15, 16.) 

A Man May Marry His Brother's ^Widow. 

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have 
no child the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto 
a stranger ; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and 
take her to him to wife. (Deut. 25 :/5.) 

A Man May Not Marry his Brother's "Widow. ~^r 

If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean 
thing; . . . they shall be childless. (Lev. 20:21.) 


Hatred to Kindred Enjoined. 

If any man come unto me, and bate not his father, and 
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, 
yea, and his own hfe also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 
14: 26.) 

Hatred to Kindred Condemned. 

Honor thy father and mother. (Eph. G : 2.) 
Husbands, love your wives. . . . For no man ever 

yet hated his own flesh. (Eph. 5 : 2o, 29.) 

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. (1 John 

3: 15.) 

Intoxicating Beverages Recommended. 

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and 
wine to those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and 
forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. 
(Prov. 31: 6, 7.) 

And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy 
soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for 
strong drink. (Deut. 11: 2G.) 

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy 
stomach's sake, and thiue often infirmities. (1 Tim. 5 : 23.) 

Wine that maketh glad the heart of man.. (Ps. 104 : 15.) 

Wine which cheereth God and man. (Judges 9 : 13. ) 
Intoxicating Beverages Discountenanced. 

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever 
is deceived thereby is not wise. (Prov. 20 : 1.) 

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red; when it 
giveth his color in the cup. ... At the last it biteth like 
a serpent and stingeth hke an adder. (Prov. 23 : 31, 32.) 

It is Our Duty to Obey Rulers, "Who are God's Ministers and 

Punish Evil Doers Only. 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For 
there is no power but of God; the powers that be are or- 
dained of God. AVhosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, 
resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall 
receive to themselves damnation. Fov rulers are not a ter- 


ror to good work, but to evil. . . . For this cause pay 
ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending 
continually upon tlm very thing. (Rom. 13 : 1, 2, 3, 6.) 

The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat; all, there- 
fore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. 
(Mat. 23: 2,3.) 

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the 
Lord's sake ; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto 
governors as unto them that are sent of him for the punish- 
ment of evil-doers. (1 Pet. 2: 13, 14.) 

I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment. . . . 
Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing. 
(Eccl. 8: 2,5.) 

It is Not Our Duty Always to Obey Rulers, "Who Sometimes 
Punish the Good, and Receive Damnation Therefor. 

But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of 
Egypt commanded them. . . . Therefore God dealt well 
with the midwives. (Ex. 1 : 17, 20.) 

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said, 
... Be it known unto thee, king, that we will not serve 
thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set 
up. (Dan. 3: 16,18.) 

Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree, 
. . . (that whoever shall ask a petition of any God or 
man for thii-ty days, . . . he shall be cast into the den of 
lions). . . . Now, when Daniel knew that the writing 
was signed, he went into his house and . . . kneeled 
upon his knees three times a day and prayed, . . . as he 
did aforetime. (Dan. 6 : 9, 7, 10.) 

And the rulers were gathered together against the Lord 
and against his Christ. For of a truth, against thy holy 
child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and 
Pontius Pilate, v/ith the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, 
were gathered together. (Acts 4: 26,27.) 

Beware of the Scribes, which love to go in long clotliing, 
and love salutations in the market places, and the chief 


seats in the synaprogues. . . . These shall receive greater 
damnation. (Mark 12: 38, 39, 40.) 

And Herod with his men of war set him at naught, and 
mocked him, and aiTayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent 
him again to Pilate. . . . And Pilate gave sentence. . 
. . And when they were come to the place which is called 
Calvary, there they crucified him. . . . And the people 
stood by beholding. And the rulers also with them derided 
him. (Luke 23 : 11, 24, 33, 35.) 

"Woman's Bights Denied. 

And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall 
rule over thee. (Gen. 3 : 16.) 

I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority 
over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2 : 12.) 

They are commanded to be under obedience, as also 
saith the law. (1 Cor. 14 : 34.) 

Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. 

(1 Peter 3: 6.) 

Woman's Rights Affirmed. 

And Deborah, a prophetess, . . . judged Israel at 
that time. . . . And Deborah said unto Barak, Up, for 
this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into 
thy hand. . . . And the Lord discomfited Sisera, and 
all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword 
before Barak. (Judges 4: 4, 14, 15.) 

The inhabitants of the villages ceased; they ceased in 
Israel, until that I, Deborah, arose, that I arose, a mother 
in Israel. (Judges 5: 7.) 

And on my hand-maidens I will pour out in those days 
my spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2: 18.) 

And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which 
did prophesy. (Acts 21 : 9.) 

Obedience to Masters Enjoined. 

Servants, obey in all things your masters according 
to tlie flesh. . . . And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily 
as to the Lord. (Col. 3 : 22, 23.) 


Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear: 

not only to the good and gentle, but also to the fro ward. 

(1 Peter 2: 18.) "^ 

Obedience Due to God Only. 

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 

shalt thou serve. (Mat. 4: 10.) 

Be ye not the servants of men. (1 Cor. 7 : 23.) 
Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, 

even Christ. (Mat. 23 : 10.) 

There is an Unpardonable Sin. 

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath 
never forgiveness. (Mark 3: 29.) 

There is K"o Unpardonable Sin. 

And by him all that believe are justified from all things. 
(Acts 13: 39.) 


Man was Created After the Other Animals. 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and 
cattle after their kind. . . . And God said, Let us make 
man. ... So God created man in his own image. (Gen. 
1: 25,26,27.) 

Man was Created Before the Other Animals. 

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man 
should be alone ; I will make him a help-meet for him. And 
out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the 
field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto 
Adam to see what he would call them. (Gen. 2 : 18, 19.) 

Noah, by God's Command, Took Into the Ark Clean Beasts by 


And the Lord said unto Noah, ... Of every clean 
beast thou shalt take to thee bv sevens. . . . And Noah 
did according to all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 
7:1,2,5.) . . . 


Noah, by God's Command, Took Into the Ark Clean Beasts by 


Of clean beasts . . . there went in two and two unto 
Noah into the Ark, . . . aa God had commanded Noah. 
(Gen. 7: 8, 9.) __________ 

Seed Time and Harvest were Never to Cease. 

While the earth remaineth, seed time and harvest . . 
shall not cease. (Gen. 8: 22.) 

Seed Time and Harvest Did Cease for Seven Years. 

And the seven years of dearth began to come. . . . 
And the famine was over all the face of the earth. (Gen. 
41: 54,56.) 

For these two years hath the famine been in the land; and 
yet there are five years in which there shall neither be earing 
nor harvest. (Gen. 45:6.) 

God Hardened Pharaoh's Heart. 

But I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the 

people go. (Ex. 4:21.) 

And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh. (Ex. 

9: 12.) 

Pharaoh Hardened His Own Heart. 

But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hard- 
ened his heart, and hearkened not unto them. (Ex. 8 : 15.) 

All the Cattle and Horses in Egypt Died. 
Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is 
in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, 
upon the oxen, and upon the sheep. . . . And all the cat- 
tle of Egypt died. (Ex. 9 : 3,6.) 

All the Horses of Egypt did Not Die. 
But the Egyptians pursued aft<^r them (all the horses 
and chariots of Pharaoh, and his liorsomen, and his army) 
and overtook them encamping by the sea. (Ex. 14 : 9.) 

John the Baptist Recognised Jesus as the Messiah. 
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and 
eaith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the em 



of the world. . . . And I saw and bare record that this 
is the Son of God. (John 1 : 29, 34.) 

John the Baptist (Jid Not Recognize Jesus as the Messiah. 

Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of 
Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him. Art 
thou he that should come, or do we look for another*^ 
(Mat. 11 : 2, 3.) 

John the Baptist was Elias. 
This is Elias which was for to come. (Mat. 11 : 14.) 

John the Baptist was Not Elias. 

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? 
And he saith, I am not. (John 1 : 21.) 

The Father of Joseph, Mary's Husband, was Jacob. 

And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom 
was born Jesus. (Mat. 1:16.) 

The Father of Mary's Husband was Heli. 

Being . . . the son of Joseph which was the son of 
TIeli. (Luke 3 : 23.) 

The Father of Salah was Arphaxad. 
And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat 
Salah. (Gen. 11: 12.) 

The Father of Sala was Cainan. 

Which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, 
which was the son of Arphaxad. (Luke 3 : 35, 36.) 

The Infant Jesus was Taken into Egypt. 

He took the young child and his mother by night and 
departed into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod. 
. . . But when Herod was dead ... he arose and took 
the young child and his mother and came . . . and dwelt 
in a city called Nazareth. (Mat. 2 : 14, 15, 19, 21, 23.) 
The Infant Jesus was Not Taken into Egypt. 

And when the days of her purification, according to the 
law of Moses, wereuccomphshed, they brought him to Jeni- 
6alem,to present him to the Lord. -. . . And when they 


had performed all things, according to the law of the Lord, 
they returned ... to their ovm city, Nazareth. (Luke 
2: 22, 39.) 

Jesus was Tempted in the "Wilderness, 

And immediately [after his baptism] the spirit driveth 
him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness 
forty days tempted of Satan. (Mark 1 : 12, 13.) 

Jesus was Wot Tempted in the "Wilderness. 

And the third day [after his baptism] there was a mar- 
riage in Cana of Galilee. . . . And both Jesus was called 
and his disciples to the marriage. (John 2 : 1, 2.) 

Jesus Preached his First Sermon Sitting on the Mount. 

And, seeing the multitude, he went up into a mountain, 

and when he was set his disciples came unto him. And he 

opened his mouth and taught them, saying. (Mat. 5 : 


He Preached his First Sermon Standing in the Plain. 

And he came down with them and stood in the plain ; 
and the company of his disciples and a great multitude of 
people . . . came to hear him. . . . And he lifted up 
his eyes on his disciples and said. (Luke 6 : 17, 20.) 

John was in Prison when Jesus went into Galilee. 

Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into 
Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Mark 
1 : 14.) 

John was Not in Prison when Jesus went into Galilee. 

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galil(K'. 
(John 1 : 43.) 

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
land of Judea. . . . And John was also baptizing in 
Enon. . . . For John was not yet cast into prison. 
(John 3: 22,23,24.) 


The Disciples were Commanded to Take a Staff and Sandals. 

And commanded them that they should take nothing 

for their journey BSb^ a staff onlj ; no scrip, no bread, no 

mone^^ in their purse; but be shod with sandals. (Mark 

^ G:8,9.) 

V They were Commanded to Take Neither Staves Nor Sandals. 

Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your 
purses; nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, 
neither shoes, nor yet staves. (Mat. 10: 9,10.) 

Two Blind Men Besought Jesus. 

And behold, two blind men sitting by the way-side, 

when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying. 

Have mercy on us, Lord thou son of David. (Mat. 

20: 30.) 

Only One Blind Man Besought Him. 

A certain blind man sat by the w^ay-side begging. . . . 
And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy 
on me. (Luke 18: 35,38.) 

Two Men Coming Out of the Tombs Met Jesus. 

There met him two, possessed with devils, coming out 
of the tombs. (Mat. 8 : 28.) 

Only One Man Coming Out of the Tombs Met Him. 

There met him, coming out of the tombs, a man with an 
unclean spirit. (Mark 5:2.) 

A Centurion Besought Jesus to Heal his Servant. 

There came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and 

saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy. 

(Mat. 8: 5,6.) 

Not the Centurion, but his Messengers, Besought Jesus. 

He sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him 
that he would come and heal his serva-nt. xind when they 
came to Jesus, they besought, liim. (Luke 7 : 3, 4.) 


Jesus was Crucified at the Third Hour. 

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. 
(Mark 15: 25.) 

He was Not Crucified Until the Sixth Hour. 

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about 
the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your 
king. . . . Shall I crucify your king? (John 19: 14, 15.) 

The Two Thieves Reviled Jesus. 

The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the 
same in his teeth. (Mat. 27 : 44.) 

And they that were crucified with him, reviled him. 
(Mark 15: 32.) 

Only One of the Thieves Reviled Him. 

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on 
him. . . . But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, 
Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same con- 
demnation? (Luke 23 : 39, 40.) 

Vinegar Mingled with Gall was Offered Jesus. 

They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall. 
(Mat. 27: 34.) 

"Wine Mingled with Myrrh was Offered to Him. 

And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh. 
(Mark 15 : 23.) 

Satan Entered into Judas while at the Supper. 

And after the sop Satan entered into him. (John 

13: 27.) 

Satan Entered into him Before the Supper. 

Then entered Satan into Judas. . . . And he went 
his way and communed with the chief priests and captains, 
how he might betray him. . . . Then came the day of 
unleavened bread when the passover must be killed. (Luke 
22 : 3, 4, 7.) 



Judas Beturned the Pieces of Silver. 
Then Judas . - . . brought again the thirty pieces of 
Bilver to the chief priests and elders. (Mat. 27 : 3.) 

Judas did Wot Return the Pieces of Silver. 

Now, this man purchased a field with the reward of 
iniquity. (Acts 1:18.) 

Judas Hanged Himself. 

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and 
departed, and went and hanged himself. (Mat. 27: 5.) 
Judas did Not Hang Himself, but Died Another "Way. 

And falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and 
all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1 : 18.) 

The Potter's Field was Purchased by Judas. 

Now, this man purchased a field with the reward of 

iniquity. (Actsl: 18.) 

The Potter's Field was Purchased by the Chief Priests. 

And the chief priests took the silver pieces . . . and 
bought with them the potter's field. (Mat. 27 : 6, 7.) 

But One "Woman Carae to the Sepulcher. 
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene, early, 
when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher. (John 20 : 1.) 
Two Women Came to the Sepulcher. 
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward 
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the 
other Mary, to see the sepulcher. (Mat. 28 : 1.) 

Three "Women Came to the Sepulcher. 
And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and 
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet 
spices, that they might come and anoint him. (Mark 16: 1.) 
More than Three "Women Came to the Sepulcher. 
It was MaTy Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the 
mother of James, and other women dhut were with them. 
(Luke 24: 10.) 



It was at Sunrise when they Came to the Sepulcher. 

And very early in the morning, the first day of the 
week, they came unto the sepulcher, at the rising of the 
sun. (Mark 16: 2.) 

It was some time Before Sunrise when They came. 

The first day of the week,cometh Mary Magdalene, early , 
while it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher. (John 20 : 1.) 

Two Angels were Seen at the Sepulcher, Standing up. 

And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed there- 
about, behold, two men stood by them in sbining garments. 
(Luke 24: 4.) 

But One Angel was Seen, and He was Sitting Down. 

For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and 
came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon 
it. . . . And the angel answered and said unto the women, 
Fear not. (Mat. 28: 2,5.) 

Two Angels were Seen within the Sepulcher. 

And as she wept she stooped down and looked into the 
sepulcher, and seeth two angels in white. (John 20 : 11, 12.) 

But One Angel was Seen within the Sepulcher. 

And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man 

sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment. 

(Mark 16: 5.) 

The One Angel Seen was Without the Sepulcher. 

The angel . . . rolled back the stone from the door, 
and sat upon it. (Mat. 28 : 2.) 

The Women went and Told the Disciples of Christ's Resurrection. 

And they departed quickly from the sepulcher, with fear 
and groat joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. 
(Mat. 28: 8.)' 

And f(^turned from the sopiilcher, and told all these 
things unto the eleven. (Luke 24 : 0.) 


The "Women did Not Go and Tell the Disciples. 

And they went out quickly and fled from the sepulcher; 
for they trembled and were amazed ; neither said they any- 
thing to any man. (Mark 16: 8.) 

The Angels Appeared After Peter and John Visited the Sepulcher. 

Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, 

[whom Jesus loved,] and came to the sepulcher, . . . and 

went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes 

Then the disciples went away again. But Mary stood with- 
out at the sepulcher, weeping; and as she wept she stooped 
down and looked into the sepulcher, and seeth two angels 
in white. (John 20 : 3, 6, 10-12.) 
The Angels Appeared Before Peter Alone Visited the Sepulcher. 

Behold, two men stood by them [the women] in shining 
garments. . . . And they . . . returned from the sep- 
ulcher, and told all these things unto the eleven. . . . 
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulcher, and stooping 
do^Ti he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and 
departed wondering. (Luke 24 : 4, 8, 9.) 

Jesus Appeared First to Mary Magdalene Only. 

Now, when Jesus was risen early, the first day of the 

week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16 : 9.) 

- And when she had thus said, she turned herself back 

and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 

(John 20: 14.) 

Jesus Appeared First to the Two Marys. 

And as they [Mary Magdalene and the other Mary] went 

to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying. All hail. 

(Mat. 28: 9.) 

He Appeared to Neither of the Marys. 

(See Luke 24: 1-11.) 

Jesus was to be Tnree Days and Three Nights in the Grave. 
So shall the son of man be three days and thre^ nights 
in the heart of the earth. (Mat. 12 : 40.) 


He was but Two Days and Two Nights in the Grave. 

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. . . . 
It was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath. 
. . . And Pilate . . . gave the body to Joseph. And 
ho . . . laid him in a sepulcher. . . . Now, wheu Jesus 
was risen early the Srst day of the week, he appeared first 
to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 15 : 25, 42, 44, 45, 46 ; and 
IG: 9.) 

The Holy Ghost "Was Bestowed at Pentecost. 

But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is 
come upon you. ... Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence. (Acts 1 : 8, 5.) 

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come they were 
all of one accord in one place. . . . And they were all filled 
with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2 : 1, 4.) 

The Holy Ghost was Bestowed Before Pentecost. 

And when he said this he breathed on them, and saith 
unto tliem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (John 20 : 22.) 

The Disciples were Commanded Iramediately After the Resurrec- 
tion to go into Galilee. 

Then said Jesus unto them. Be not afraid ; go tell ray 

brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see 

me. (Mat. 28: 10.) 

They were Commanded Immediately After the Resurrection to 

Tarry at Jerusalem. 

But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued 
with power from on high. (Luke 24 : 49.) 

Jesus First Appeared to the Eleven Disciples in a Room at Jeru- 

And they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusa- 
lem, and found the eleven gathered together. . . . And 
as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of 
them. . . But they were terrified and affrighted, and sup- 
posed that they had seen a spirit. (Luke 24: 33, 3G, 37.) 

The same day, at evening, l)eing tLie first day of the 
week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were 


assembled, . . . came Jesus and stood in the midst. 
(John 20: 19.) 

He First Appeared to them on a Mountain in Galilee. 

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a 
mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they 
saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. (Mat. 

Jesus Ascended from Mount Olivet. 
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, 
he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight. 
. . . Then returned they unto Jerusalem, from the mount 
caUed Olivet. (Acts 1 : 9, 12.) 

He Ascended from Bethany. 
And he led them out as far as to Bethanj'^ ; and he lifted 
up liis hands and blessed them. And it came to pass while 
he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up 
into heaven. (Luke 24: 50, 51.) 

Did he Ascend from Either Place ? 

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at 
meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief. ... So 
then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received 
up into heaven. (Mark 16 : 14, 19.) 

Paul's Attendants Heard the Voice, and Stood Speechless. 

And the men which journeyed with him [Paul] stood 
speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man. (x\cts 9:7.) 
His Attendants Heard Not the Voice, and were Prostrate. 

And they that were with me saw indeed the light and 
were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of him that spake 
tome. (Acts 22: 9.) 

And when we were all fallen to the earth, 1 heard a 
voice. (Acts 26: 14.) 

Abraham Departed to go into Canaan. 
And Abram took Sarah, his wife, and Lot, his brother's 
son, . . and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan, 
and into the land of Canaan they came. (Gen. 12 : 5.) 


Abraham "Went not Knowing "Where. 

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a 
place which he should after receive for an inheritance, 
obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 
(Heb. 11 : 8.) 

Abraham had Two Sons. 

Abraham had two sons ; one by a bond-maid, the other 
by a free woman. (Gal. 4 : 22.) 

Abraham had but One Son. 

By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up l8aa<-', 
. . . his only begotten son. (Heb. 11:17.) 

Keturah was Abraham's "Wife. 

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was 
Keturah. (Gen. 25:1.) 

Keturah was Abraham's Concubine. 

The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine. (1 Chron. 
1: 32.) 

Abraham Begat a Son when he was a Hundred Tears Old, by the 

Interposition of Providence. 

Sarah conceived and bare Abraham a son in his old ago, 
at the set time of which God had spoken to him. (Gon. 
21: 2.) 

And being not weak in the faith, he considered not his 
own body, now dead, when he was about a hundred years 
old. (Rom. 4: 19.) 

Therefore sprang there from one, and him as good as 
dead, so many as the stars of the sky. (Heb. 11 : 12.) 

Abraham Begat Six Children More After he was a Hundred Years 
Old, "Without any Interposition of Providence. 

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was 
Keturah; and she bare him Ziraram, and Jockshan, and 
Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. (Gen. 25: 


Jacob Bought a Sepulcher of the Sons of Hamor. 

And the bones of Joseph . . . buried they in Shechem, 
in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of 
Ilamor, the father of Shechem. (Josh. 24: 32.) 

Abraham Bought it of the Sons of Emmor. 

In the sepulcher that Abraham bought for a sum of 
money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem. 
(Acts 7: 16.) 

God Promised the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his Seed. 

And the Lord said unto Abraham, . . . All the land 
which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for- 
ever. . . . Unto thee and to thy seed after thee. (Gen. 13 : 
14, 15, and 17: 8.) 

Abraham and his Seed Never Received the Promised Xiand. 

And he gave him [Abraham] none inheritance in it, no, 
not so much as to set his foot on. (Acts 7:5.) 

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as in a 
strange country, dwelhng in tabernacles with Isaac and 
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. . . . 
These all died in faith, not having received the promises. 
(Heb. 11 : 9, 13.) 

Baasha Died in the Twenty-sixth Year of Asa. 
So Baasha slept with his fathers, . . . and Elah, his 
son, reigned in his stead. ... In the twenty and sixtli 
year of Asa, king of Judah, began Elah to reign over Israel. 
(1 Kings 16: 6,8.) 

Baasha did Not Die in the Twenty-sixth Year of Asa. 
In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha, 
king of Israel, came up against Judah. (2 Chron. 16 : 1.) 

Ahaziah was the Youngest Son of Jehoram. 

And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his 
[ Jehoram's] youngest son, king in his stead ; for the band 
of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain 
all the eldest. (2 Chron. 22 : 1.) 


Ahaziah was Not the Youngest Son of Jehoram. 

The Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the 
Philistines, and of the Arabians, . . . and they came up 
into Judah . . . and carried away all the substance that 
was found in the king's house, and sons also, and his wives ; 
so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoabaz, the 
youngest of his sons. (2 Chron. 21 : IG, 17.) 

Ahaziah was Twenty-two Years Old when he Began to Reign, 
being Eighteen Years Younger than his Father. 

Thirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he 

began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. . 

. . And Ahaziah reigned in his stead. . . . Two and 

twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 

(2 Kings 8: 17,24,26.) 

Ahaziah was Forty-two Years Old when he Began to Heign, being 
Two Years Older than his Father. 

Thirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he 
began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. 
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his young- 
est son, king in his stead. Forty and two years old was 
Ahaziah when he began to reign. (2 Chron. 21 : 20, and 
22 : 1, 2.) 

Michal had No Child. 
Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child 
unto the day of her death. (2 Sam. G : 23.) 

Michal had Five Children. 

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul. (2 Sam. 

David was Tempted by the Lord to Number the People. 
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, 
and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel 
and Judah. (2 Sam. 24: 1.) 

David was Tempted by Satan to Number the People. 
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked 
David to number Israel. (1 Chron. 21: 1.) 


Thoro were 800,000 "Warriors of Israel and 500,000 of Juclah. 

And Joab gave up the sum of the number o! the people 
unto the king ; and there were in Israel eight hundred thou- 
sand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of 
Judah five hundred thousand men. (2 Sam. 24: 9.) 

There were 1,100,000 of Israel and 470,000 of Judah. 

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people 
unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thou- 
sand and a hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew 
the sword ; and Judah was four hundred three score and ten 
thousand [470,000] men that drew the sword. (1 Chron. 
21: 5.) 

David Sinned in Numbering the People. 

And David's heart smote him after that he had num- 
bered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have 
sinned greatly in that I have done. (2 Sam. 24: 10.) 

David Never Sinned except in the Matter of Uriah. 

David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, 
and turned not aside from anything that he commanded 
him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah 
the Hittite. (1 Kings 15 : 5.) 

David Slew 700 Syrian Charioteers and 40,000 Horsemen. 

And David slew the men of the seven hundred chariots of 
the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen. (2 Sam. 10: 18.) 
^ David Slew 7,000 Syrian Charioteers and 40,000 Footmen. 

And David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men 
which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen. 
(1 Chron. 19 : 18.) ^ 

David Paid for a Threshing Floor Fifty Shekels of Silver. 
So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for 
- fifty shekels of silver. (2 Sam. 24 : 24.) 

David Paid for it Six Hundred Siiekels of Gold. 

So David gave to Oman for the place six hundred shek- 
els of gold. (1 Chron. 21 : 25.) 


Goliath, "was Slain by David. 

And there went out a champion out of the camp of the 
Phihstines, named Goliath of Gath. ... So David . . . 
smote the Pliilistine and slew him. (1 Sam. 17 : 4, 50.) 

Goliath was Slain by Elhanan. 

Elhanan, the son of Jaare-origim, a Bethlehemite, slew 
["the brother of," supphed by the translators] Goliath the 
Gittite. (2 Sam. 21: 19.) 


Christ is Equal with God. 

I and my Father are one. (John 10 : 30.) 
AVho, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
to be equal with God. (Phil. 2 : 6.) 

Christ is Not Equal with God. 

My Father is greater than I. (John 14 : 28.) 
Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Mat. 24 : 36.) 

Christ Judged Men. 

The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 

judgment to the Son. ... As I hear I judge. (John 

5: 22,30.) 

Christ Judged No Man. 

I judge no man. (John 8: 15.) 

If any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him 
not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
world. (John 12: 47.) 

Jesus was All Powerful. 

All power is given unto mo in heaven and in earth. 
(Mat. 28: 18.) 

The Father loveth the hoji, .iikI hath given all things 
into his hand. (John 3: 35.) 


Jesus was Not All Powerful. 

And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid 
his hands on a few sick folk and healed them. (Mark 6:5.) 

The Law was Superceded by the Christian Dispensation. 

The law and the prophets were until John; since that 
time the kingdom of God is preached. (Luke 16 : 16.) 

Having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances. (Eph. 2: 15.) 

But now we are delivered from the law. (Rom. 7:6.) 

The Law was N^t Superceded by the Christian Dispensation. 

I come not to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say 
unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title 
shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whoso- 
ever therefore shall break one of these least commandments 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the 
kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5: 17. 18, 19.) 

Christ's Mission was Peace. 

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of 
the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in 
the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 
(Luke 2: 13,14.) 

And thou, child, shall be called the Prophet of the High- 
est. . . . To guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 
1: 76,79.) 

And his name shall be called . . . The Prince of 
Peace. (Is. 9:6.) 

Christ's Mission was Not Peace. 

Think not that I am come to send peace t5n earth ; I 
came not to send peace, but a sword. (Mat. 10 : 34.) 

I am come to send fire on the earth. (Luke 12 : 49.) 

Christ Received not Testimony from Man. 

Ye sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth. 
But I receive not testimony from man. (John 5: 33, 34.) 



Christ Did Heceive Testimony from Man. 

And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been 
with me from the beginning. (John 15 : 27.) 

Christ's Witness of Himself is True. 

I am one that bear witness of myself. . . . Though I 
bear record of myself, yet my record is true. (John 8: 
18, 14.) 

Christ's "Witness of Himself is Not True. 

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 
(John 5 : 31.) 

It was Lawful for the Jews to Put Jesus to Death. 

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law 
he ought to die. (John 19 : 7.) 

It was Not Lawful for the Jews to Put him to Death. 

The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us 
to put any man to death. (John 18 : 31.) 

Children are Punished for the Sins of their Parents. 

I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the 
iniquities of the fathers upon the children. (Ex. 20 : 5.) 

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to 
the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is 
born unto thee shall surely die. (2 Sam. 12 : 14.) 

Children are Not Punished for the Sins of their Parents. 

The son shall not Dear the iniquity of the father. (Ezek. 
18: 20.) 

Neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. 
(Deut. 24: IG.) 

Man is Justified by Faith Alone. 

By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. 
(Rom. 3: 20.) 

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the 
law, but by the faith of Jesus (Jhrist. (Gal. 2 : 10.) 

The just shall Uve by faith. And the law is not of faith. 
(Gal. 3: 11,12.) 


For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof 
to glory. (Rom. 4: 2.) 

Man is Not Justified by Faith Alone. 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works? . . . 
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only. (James 2: 21, 24.) . 

The doers of the law shall be justified. (Rom. 2 : 13.) 

It is Impossible to Fall from Grace. 

And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never 
perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. (John 
10: 28.) 

Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor hight 
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate 
us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
(Rom. 8: 38,39.) 

It is Possible to Fall from Grace. 

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteous- 
ness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all 
the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? 
All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be men- 
tioned ; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his 
sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. (Ezek.l8: 24.) 

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made par- 
takers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of 
God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall 
away, to renew them a,gain unto repentance. (Heb. 6 : 4, 

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the 
world through the knov/ledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus 
Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the 
latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it 
had been better for them not to have known the way of 
righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from 


the holy commandment delivered unto them. (2 Peter 
2: 20, 21.) 

No Man is "Wittiout Sin. 

For there is no man that sinneth not. (1 Kings 8 : 4G.) 

Who can say, I have made my heart clean ; I am pure 
from my sin? (Prov. 20: 9.) 

For there is not a-just man upon earth, that doeth good 
and sinneth not. (Eccl. 7: 20.) 

There is none righteous, no, not one. (Kom. 3 : 10.) 

Christians are Sinless. 

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; . . . 
he cannot sin, because he is born of God. . . . Whosoever 
abideth in him sinneth not. ... He that committeth sin 
is of the devil. (1 John 3 : 9, 6, 8.) 

There is to be a Resurrection of the Dead. 

The trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised. 
(1 Cor. 15: 52.) 

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; 
. . . and they were judged, every man according to their 
works. (Rev. 20: 12,13.) 

The hour is coming in the which all that are in the 
graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth. (John 
5: 28, 29.) 

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. 
(1 Cor. 15: 16.) 

There is to be no Resurrection of the Dead. 

As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he 
that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. (Job. 

7: 9.) 

The dead know not anything, neither have they any 
more a reward. (Eccl. 9:5.) 

They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, 
they shall not rise. (Is. 26 : 14.) 

self-contra'dictions of the bible. 191 

Reward and Punishment to be Bestowed in this World. 

Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, 
much more the wicked and the sinner. (Prov. 11 : 31.) 

Reward and Punishment to be Bestowed in the Next "World. 

And the dead were judged out of those things which 
were written in the books, according to their works. 
(Rev. 20: 12.) 

Then he shall reward every man aijcording to his works. 
(Mat. 16: 27.) 

According to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
bad. (2 Cor. 5 : 10.) 

Annihilation the Portion of all Mankind. 

Why died not I from the womb ? Why did I not give 
up the ghost when I came out of the belly ? . . . For now 
should I have lain still and been quiet ; I should have slept ; 
then had I been at rest, with kings and counselors of the 
earth, which built desolate places for themselves; or with 
princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver; or 
as a hidden, untimely birth I had not been; as infants which 
never saw the light. There the wicked cease from troubling, 
and there the v/eary be at rest. . . . The small and great 
are there, and the servant is free from his master. Where- 
fore is light given to h-m that is in misery, and life unto the 
bitter in soul, w^hich long for death, but it cometh not, . . . 
which rejoice exceedingly and are glad, when they can find 
the grave? (Job. 3 : 11, 13-17, 19-22.) 

The dead know not anything. . . . For there is no 
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave 
whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9 : 5, 10.) 

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth the 
beasts, even one thing befalleth them; as the one dietli, go 
dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a 
man hath no pre-eminence above a beast. . . ; All go 
unto one place. (Eccl. 3 : 19, 20.) 

Endless Misery the Portion of a Part of Mankind. 

These shall go away into everlasting punishment. 
(Mat. 25: 46.) 


And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake 
of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet 
are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 
. . . And whosoever was not found written in the book of 
hfe was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20 : 10, 15.) 

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever 
•and ever. (Tlev. 14: 11.) 

And many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, 
some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting 
contempt. (Dan. 12 : 2.) 

The Earth is to be Destroyed. 

The earth also and the works that are therein shall be 
burned up. (2 Peter 3 : 10.) 

They shall perish, but thou remainest. (Heb. 1 : 11.) 
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on 
it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and 
there was no place found for them. (Rev. 20 : 11.) 

The Earth is Wever to be Destroyed. 

Who laid the foundations of the earth that it should not 
be removed forever. (Ps. 104 : 5.) 

But the earth abideth forever. (Eccl. 1:4.) 

No Evil Shall Happen to the Godly. 
There shall no evil happen to the just. (Prov. 12 : 21.) 
Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that 
which is good? (1 Peter 3 : 13.) 

Evil Does Happen to the Godly. 

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth 
every son whom he receiveth. (Heb. 12 : G.) 

And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered 
my servant. Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a 
perfect and upright man? . . . So went Satan forth . . . 
and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto 
his crown. (Job 2: 3, 7.) 


Worldly Good and Prosperity the Lot of the Godly. 

There shall no evil happen to the just. (Prov. 12 : 21.) 

For the Lord loveth judgment and forsaketh not his 
saints; .they are preserved forever. . . . The wicked 
Avatcheth the righteous and seeketh to slay him. The Lord 
Avill not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is 
judged. . . . Mark the perfect man, and behold the up- 
right; for the end of that man is peace. (Ps. 37: 28, 32, 
33, 37.) 

Blessed is the man that walkethnot in the counsel of the 
ungodly. . . . Whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. (Ps. 
1:^1,3.) ■ 

And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous 
man. (Gen. 39: 2.) 

So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his 
beginning. (Job 42: 12.) 

"Worldly Misery and Destitution the Lot of the Godly. 

They were stoned, they were sawn a sunder, were tempted, 
were slain with the sv/ord ; they wandered about in sheep- 
skins and goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 
. . . they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in 
dens and caves of the earth. (Heb. 11 : 37, 38.) 

These are they which came out of great tribulation. 
.(Rev. 7: 14.) 

Yea, and all that will hve godly in Christ Jesus shall 
suffer persecution. (2 Tim. 3 : 12.) 

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. 
(Luke 21 : 17.) 

"Worldly Prosperity a Blessing and a Keward of Righteousness. 

There is no man that hath left house or brethren, or sis- 
ters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for 
my sake and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold 
now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and 
mothers, and children, and lands. (Mark 10: 29, 30.) 



I liaA^e been young, and now am old; yet have I not 
seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread. 
(Ps. 37: 25.) 

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord. . . . Wealth 
and riches shall be in his house. (Ps. 112 : 1, 3.) 

If thou return unto the Almighty, thou shalt be built up. 
. . . Then thou shalt lay up gold as dust. (Job 22 ; 
23, 24.) 

In the house of the righteous is much treasure. (Prov. 
15, 6.) 

"Worldly Prosperity a Curse and a Bar to Future Heward. 

Blessed be ye poor. (Luke 6: 20.) 

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth. . . . 
For where your treasure is there will your heart be also. 
(Mat. 6: 19,21.) 

And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was car 
ried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. (Luke 16: 22. 'i 

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle 
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 
(Mat. 19: 24.) 

AVo unto you that are rich! for ye have received your 
consolation. (Luke 6: 24.) 

The Christian Yoke is Easy, 

Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. . . . 
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Mat. 11 : 

Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that 
wliich is good? (1 Peter 3 : 13.) 

The Christian Yoke is Not Easy. 

In the world ye shall have tribulation. (John IG: 33.) 

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall 
suffer persecution. (2 Tim. 3: 12.) 

Whom the Lord lovcth he chasteneth, and scourgeth 
every son whom he receiveth. . . . But if yo be without 
chastisement, whereof all are ])arUik(.TS, then are ye bas- 
tards and not sonsi (Heb. 12 : 0, 8.) 


The Fruit of God's Spirit is Love and Gentleness. 

The fruit of the spirit is love, Joy, peace, long-suffering, 
gentleness, goodness. (Gal. 5: 22.) 

The Fruit of God's Spirit is Vengeance and Fury. 

And the spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him. . 
. . And he . . . slew a ^thousand men. (Judges 15: 
14,15.) — ' 

And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit 
from God came upon Saul, . . . and there was a javelin 
in Saul's hand. And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I 
will smite David even to the wall with it. (1 Sam. 18: 
10, 11.) 

Prosperity and Longevity Enjoyed by the "Wicked. 

Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are 
mighty in power? Their seed is established in their sight 
with them, and their offspring before their eyes. Their 
houses are safe from fear, (Job 21 : 7, 8, 9.) 

They [men of the world] are full of children and leave 
the rest of their substance to their babes. (Ps. 17 : 14.) 

I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity 
of the wicked. . . . They are not in trouble as other men. 
. . . Behold, these are the ungodly who prosper in the 
world; they increase in riches. (Ps. 73 : 3, 5, 12.) 

There is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his 
wickedness. (Eccl. 7: 15.) 

Wherefore dotli the way of the v/icked prosper? Where- 
fore are all they happy that deal very treacherously ? ( Jer. 

12: 1.) 

Prosperity and Longevity Denied to the Wicked. 

The light of the wicked shall be put out. . . . Terrors 
shall make him afraid on every side. . . . He shall be 
driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the 
' world. He shall neither have son nor nephew among his 
people, nor any remaining in his dwellings. (Job. 18 : 5, 

But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he 
lirolong his days. (Eccl. 8: 23.) 


Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their 
days. (Ps. 55: 23.) 

The years of the wicked shall be shortened. (Prov. 
10: 27.) 

They [the hypocrites] die in youth. (Job. 36 : 14.) 

Be not over much wicked, neither be foolish ; why 
iiouldst thou die before they time? (Eccl. 7: 17.) 

Poverty is a Blessing. 

Blessed be ye poor. . . . Woe unto you that are rich ! 
(Luke 6: 20,24.) 

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in 
faith, and heirs of the kingdom? (James 2:5.) 

Kiches a Blessing. 

The rich man's wealth is his strong tower, but the 
destruction of the poor is their poverty. (Prov. 10 : 15.) 

If thou return unto the Almighty then thou shalt be 
built up. . . . Thou shalt then lay up gold as dust. 
(Job 22: 23,24.) 

So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his 
beginning, for he had 14,000 sheep, and 6,000 camels and a 
thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. (Job 
42: 12.) 

Neither Poverty nor Kiches a Blessing. 

Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food 
convenient for me; lest 1 be full and deny thee, and say, 
Who is the Lord? or lest 1 be poor and steal, and take the 
name of my God in vain. (Prov. 30 : 8, 9.) 

"Wisdom a Source of Enjoyment. 
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom. . . . Her 
ways are ways of pleasantness, and in her paths are peac'(\ 

(Prov. 3: 13,17.) 

"Wisdom a Source of "Vexation, Grief, and Sorrow. 

And I gave my heart to know wisdom. . . . T per- 
ceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in mucli 
wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge, 
increaseth sorrow. (Ecel. 1:17, 18.) 



A Good Name a Blessing. 

A good name is better than precious ointment. (Eccl. 


A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches. 

(Trov. 22: 1.) 

A Good Name is a Curse. 

. Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of yor.. 
(LukeG: 26.) 

Laughter Commended. 

To everything there is a season, and a time. . . . 
A time to weep and a time to laugh. (Eccl. 3 : 1,4.) 

Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better 
thing under the sun than to eat and to drink, and to be 
merry. (Eccl. 8 : 15.) 

A merry heart doeth good, like a medicine. (Prov, 

17: 22.) 

Laughter Condemned. 

Woe unto you that laugh now. (Luke 6 : 25.) 
Sorrow is better than laughter; for by the sadness of 
the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the 
wise is in the house of mourning ; but the heart of fools is in 
the house of mirth. (Eccl. 7 : 3, 4.) 

The Rod of Correction a Remedy for Foolishness. 

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod 
of correction shall drive it far from him. (Prov. 22 : 15.) 

There is No Remedy for Foolishness. 

Though thou shouldst bray a fool in mortar, . . . yet 
•vill not his foolishness depart from him. (Prov. 27: 22.) 

Temptation to be Desired. 

Count it all joy when ye fall into divers tempta'*-ions. 

(James 1 : 2.) 

Temptation Not to be Desired. 

Lead us not into temptation. (Mat. 6 : 13.) 


Prophecy is Sure. 

We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto 

ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in 

a dark place. (2 Peter 1 : 19.) 

Prophecy is Not Sure. 

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and 
concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to 
destroy it ; if that nation against whom I have pronouncecl, 
turn from their evil, 1 will repent of the evil that I thought 
to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak con- 
cerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to 
plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, 
then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would ben- 
efit them. (Jer. 18: 7-10.) 

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule 
by their means. . . . IVom the prophet even unto the 
priest every one dealeth falsely. (Jer. 5 : 31, and 6 : 13.) 

Man's Life was to be One Hundred and Twenty Years. 

His days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Gen. 
6: 3.) 

Man's Life is but Seventy Years. 

The days of our years are three score years and ten. 
(Ps. 90: 10.) 

Miracles a Proof of Divine Mission. 

Now, when John had heard in the prison the works of 
Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him. Art 
thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus 
answered and said unto them. Go and show John again 
those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive 
their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and 
the deaf hear, the dead are raised. (Mat. 11 : 2-5.) 

Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God ; 
for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except 
God be with him. (John 3:2.) 

And Israel saw that great work which the I^ord did 
upon the Egy[)tians; and the people feared the Lord and 
believed the Lord and his H(?rvant' Moses. (Ex. 14: 31.) 


Miracles Not a Proof of Divine Mission. 

And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before 
his servants and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also 
called the wise men and the sorcerers. Now, the magicians of 
Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchant- 
ments, for they cast down every man his rod, and they 
became serpents. (Ex. 7: 10-12.) 

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of 
dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign 
or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, 
saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not 
known, and let us serve them, thou shalt not hearken unto 
the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. 
(Deut. 13: 1-3.) 

If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do our sons 
cast them out? (Luke 11: 19.) 

Moses was a Very Meek Man. 

Now, the man Moses was very meek, above all the men 

which were upon the face of the earth. (Num. 12 : 3.) 

Moses was a Very Cruel Man. 
And Moses said unto them. Have ye saved all the women 
alive? . . . Now, therefore, kill every male among the 
little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man. 
(Num. 31 : 15, 17.) 

Elijah Went up to Heaven. 

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 

2: 11.) 

None but Christ Ever Ascended into Heaven 

No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of Man. (John 3 : 13.) 

All Scripture is Inspired. 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2 Tim. 3: 16.) 

Some Scripture is Not Inspired. 

But I speak this by permission and not by command- 
ment. . . . But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. 
(ICor. 7: 6, and 5: 12.) 

That w^hich I speak, I speak it not after the Lord. 
(2 Cor. 11: 17.) 


I have nothing new to offer on this old subject, and I 
therefore warn the reader not to expect any wonderful rev- 
elations. The Devil is not an object of recent discovery. 
He is as old as the hills. Everybody seems to know him, 
and he seems to know everybody. lb would therefore be in 
vain for me to attempt to give any information respecting 
this old friend. However, as there are some thoughts which 
persist in bolting into my mind regarding old Nick, I have 
concluded to jot them down for those who have a taste for 
devilish reading. 

It was always a question that greatly perplexed me, 
when a boy, why God should create the Devil. I never could 
see it in any other light than that of an egregious blunder. 
Why should an infinitely good being create an infinitely bad 
being? Why did not the Creator make all of his creatures 
perfect? Why did he not save them from being lost? Why 
did he form man to place him in the garden to be tempted 
and ruined when it was in the Creator's power to prevent 
his fall? Why did he not create him so good and so strong 
that it would be impossible for him to do wrong? AVhy was 
the Serpent (the Devil) made so much stronger and wis(>r 
than man? If Adam had only been made a great deal 
stronger, and the Serpent less seductive, the human race 
might have had a glorious and brilliant career. 15ut as it 
was a poweilul serpent-devil on the one hand, and on the 
other, a weak-headed know-nothing man, is it not clear 
that better results could not have been expected? 


Why did not the author of the red man (Adam) tell 
him that he was going to have a severe temptation? — that 
he was soon to meet his great adversary? It is highly 
probable that Adam could have made a better showing if 
he had only been advised of the situation in time. But as 
it was he did not have a fair chance. It would have been no 
more than justice to have told Adam and Eve all about the 
Serpent-devil which was hid away somewhere in the garden 
like a snake in the grass. It would have been only fair to 
have posted on all the fences and walls about the garden, 
this sign, ''Adam and Eve, Beware of Snakes!" This 
would have given them a chance for their lives. Poor Adam 
and Eve ! They were not a bad lot, but were transplanted 
too early, and were nipped in the bud by the great original 
Serpent, who was acting according to his nature and circum- 
stances, and therefore we cannot find it in our hearts to be 
too severe on his Satanic Majesty. If Satan was great, it 
was not won by his own powers, he had greatness thrust 
upon him. Let us be just; let us give the Devil his due. I 
have no doubt but he has grievances, if there were any 
court where he could offer his complaints. 

The Creator made both man and Serpent-devil, knowing 
just what would and must come to pass, and he did it all 
for his own glory. He also made hell for his own glory. 
Surely the Lord's ways are not our ways. For no Modoc 
Indian would entertain such a design toward his children, 
no matter how bad they might be, or how vicious his own 

We cannot think of a creator without seeing that he as 
the author of all things, is responsible for good and evil, for 
right and wrong, for ignorance and knowledge, for truth 
and error. Man is therefore, no more responsible for his 
nature than a steam engine is responsible for its defects. 
The defects must be attributed to the maker in both cases. 

Adam knew good and evil without eating of the tree of 
knowledge. He had a brain, and his thoughts were imper- 
fect ; sometimes they were relatively correct, and then again 


they were wholly wrong: or in error. This was knowing 
good and evil, therefore he knew good and evil without eat- 
ing of the prohibited fruit, just as surely as he had a brain. 
The tree of knowledge is a very childish story. Knowledge 
does not grow on trees, nor does much of it exist in heads 
which entertain such fables as a divine revelation. 

]\Ian was created with a. brain to do his thinking and 
knowing, and by its very nature of knowing he must know 
good and evil, and yet he is cursed for knowing good and 
evil. As well might the Creator give the bird wings, . toss it 
in the air and then damn it for flying. But even supposing 
the story to be true, namely, that the fruit of the tree made 
one to know good and evil, why should such desirable fruit 
be forbidden ? What would the world be without the knowl- 
edge of good and evil? ^lan cannot know good without 
also knowing oFi/. They are inseparable. God himself knows 
good and evil, and if it is good for him to have such knowl- 
edge, then it surely must be good for you and me. The love 
of knowledge is the fountain of life. Man must have knowl- 
edge or his life is a mere cipher. All hail then to Mother 
Eve, who first tasted of the tree of knowledge, who first 
quenched her thirst at this fountain from which the whole 
race of thirsty souls have delighted to drink. Mythology 
abounds in stories about the gods; about their imperfec- 
tions and weaknesses, but this account of the Serpent-devil 
and the tree of knowledge is the silliest fable of all, and has 
entailed indescribable misery upon the human race. The 
prohi])ition of knowledge has left an inherited twist in hu- 
man nature. Even now in the afternoon of the nineteenth 
century mankind does not know much— and it is largely due 
to this first commandment not to partaice of the fruit of the 
tree of knowledge. Has not the clmn;h always prohibited 
knowledge? lias she not stood in the way of every great 
reform? Knowledge is not important. Only believe. Be- 
lieve in the Bil)le,but l)elieve it only as the ])riest explains it. 
It seems that the Serpent-devil knew more about the 
nature of man, and what would result from his eating the 



fruit of the tree of knowledge than God did. Jehovah told 
Adam in plain terms, that if he ate of the fruit of that treo 
he would dje that very day. But the Serpent-devil told Evo 
(in FrenchI suppose) that she and her " hubby" would do no 
such a thing, but on the contrary it W'OUld be a great bless- 
ing to them, and that they would become as gods (there 
were lots of gods in those days and many of them "no 
great shakes"), knowing good and evil. It turned out just 
as the Serpent-devil had told Mother Eve ; they did not die. 
And when God saw what Adam and Eve had done he called 
a conclave of gods, and after due deliberation voted to drive 
them out of the garden penniless, to live upon the cold char- 
ities of an unfriendly vv^orld. And this is the same God Vvho 
commands us to forgive and to love our enemies. That 
would not be god-hke, and therefore 1 hold the command- 
ment invalid. 

In this august assemblage of the celestial hosts, one of 
their number assigns the reasons for expelhng Adam and 
Eve from the garden in these words : " Behold the man (and 
woman) has become as one of us to know good and evil." 
(Gen. 3: 22.) Here wo see it islTsurprise to the gods that 
man had become as one of them, knowing good and evil. 
Yet these god:; are supposed to knov/ nil things from all 
eternity to all eternity. Do the gods forget things as we 
poor mortals do ? 

The Serpent had told Eve just what would happen, and 
God told Adam just that which did not happen. The Serpent 
said : " For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, 
thenyoureyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, know- 
ing good and evil. Ye shall not surely die." (Gen. 3 : 5,4.) 
The Serpent gave it straight, and God made a mistake to 
say the least. In all this story about the fall of man, the 
Devil appears to be a better friend of man than his Creator. 

The Serpent was in reality not the enemy, but the friend 
of man. He spoke words of truth and encouragement to 
Adam at a time when he needed good counsel. It is not 
to be forgotten that he spoke the truth. The poisonous 


tongue of malice has called liiiii the father of lies, but this 
saying is a lie itself— and a bald-headed lie of sufficient an- 
tiquity to be itself most appropriately called the father of 
lies. The Devil, Lucifer, is the light-bearer, the truth re- 
vealer •, but the world at large has an impression that there 
is a screw loose somewhere, and have unwittingly ascribed 
the evil to the Devil, when a very slight study of his char- 
acter and deeds will show that "the Devil is not half as 
black as he is painted." 

The next ai^count we have of him is in the book of Job 
(not a Hebrew writing), where he appears under the title of 
Satan. It is to be borne in mind that he has many names. 
In the book of Genesis we left him a serpent with a curse 
pronounced upon him : " Because thou hast done this thou 
art cursed above all cattle [what kind of cattle is a snake?] 
and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly thou shalt 
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Gen. 3: 
14.) Prior to the great fall of Adam and Eve, v/hen they fell 
upward and became as the gods, it seems the Serpent had 
always hopped along erect, on the tip end of his tail, but 
because he had divulged some court secrets, he was con- 
demned to crawl upon his belly the rest of his natural life 
(which is, I should remark, uncommonly long) ; but in the 
book of Job he says of himself that he has been "walking 
up and down in the earth." Who told him to get up? 
Was he not cursed to go on his belly for all time to come? 
How could he walk? A snake has no legs. When, where, 
how, and by whom was this transformation of a hideous 
serpent into a prince-like man, accomplished? I don't know. 
Perhaps it is a sort of Santa Claus story, coming down to 
us from the childhood of the race. All peoples liavo similar 
tradition:] which spring from early myths. Our Devil stoi-y 
will have to get in lino and march in the procession of fables. 
There are many people, and people of the very best kind, 
who do not have any Devil. He has left them and gone on 
a permanent vacation. On the other hand, there are folks 
v.lio could not feel happy if they thought there were no 

^ THE DEVIL. 205 

Devil. To all such, who may read this, I would ask a few 
(juestions which if they will intelligently answer, I shall be 
p:reatly obliged. 

Did the Serpent talk ? How could he speak without hav- 
ing the vocal organs necessary to human speech? Who 
taught him the use of language? AVhat language did Ih-^ 
speak? Was it French? I merely suggest the French, a:j 
Adam and Eve took French leave of the garden. Did the 
Serpent reason like a man? How could he with such a small 
head and not even a spoonful of brains, know so much more 
than Adam and Eve? Yea, he even knew more than God 
himself— for God did not know, or else he fibbed, that man 
would not die if he ate the forbidden fruit. He did not seem 
to know that man would become as the gods by partak- 
ing of this tree, but the Serpent knew all this and possibly 
much more; but how could so much superior knowledge be 
crowded into so small a head? Some of our congressmen 
with domes of unusual dimensions do not know as much as 
this inexperienced Serpent did. How are we to account for 
this ? Let some devilishly wise man explain to a benighted 
world why Satan has been so wickedly traduced. 

In the book of Job we have a second account of the 
Devil: "Now there was a dav when the sons of God came 
to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also 
among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence 
comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, 
From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up 
and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou 
considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in 
the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God 
and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord and 
said, Doth Job fear God for naught? Hast not thou made 
a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that 
he hath on every side? Thou hast blest the w^ork of his 
hands and his substance is increased in the land. But put 
forth thine hand now and touch all that he hath, and he 
will curse thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, 


Behold all that he hath is in thy power ; only upon himself 
put not forth thy hand. So Satan went from the presence 
of the Lord." (Job 1 : 6-12.) Then follows an account of 
the destruction of the cattle and children of Job, and yet he 
would not curse God. Satan then suggested that to afflict 
him in person would bring out his weakness and deeply hid- 
den wickedness. Job was tormented with boils, and three 
gratuitous advisors, and did not curse God, but came very 
Dearly giving his counselors a cuss word or two. They 
exasperated him beyond measure. 

Now while it must be admitted that the Devil does not 
show up to as great advantage in this fable as he does in 
that relating to the tree of knowledge, yet we should not 
jump to our conclusions. Let us review this Job story. 

We are surprised at the dignified manners of Satan. He 
walks in with lordly airs among the sons of God. No one 
present said to him, "Get out of here." He struts around 
in the gay company as one of them. We hardly know how 
to understand such familiarity possible between the sons of 
God and Satan. If, however, the sons of God in those days 
were no better than the sons of God are in these, it is not 
in the least surprising that Satan should conduct himself 
as well as the best of them. But why did God permit him 
to do these cruel things to Job? In a certain book by God, 
we are told to ''resist the Devil and he will flee from thee." 
This would have been splendid medicine for the doctors who 
. prescribed it. Satan did not come there so far as we see to 
work any temptation. It was God who set up the tempta- 
tion before Satan. He began by asking Satan what he 
/thought of Job. AVhat mattered it what his opinion of Job 
\ might be? Why should his opinion be asked? Was it not 
showing respect to him? God should have said, "Get be- 
hind me Satan." 

Satan had seen many men who could not stand in the 

hour of trial, and not knowing Job he took him for a man 

f that kind; God, however, knew Job to bo a "perfect" 

man and ought to have protected him from all evil. Yet he 

C:t ^HE DEVIL. 207 

j/ did nothing of the kind, but on the contrary, clothed Satan 
T with power of destroying his cattle and children, and afflict- 
ing him with tormenting boils. We see then that it is not 
Satan who is respon^ble for the sufferings of the patient 
man, but God himself, who first shows respect to Satan's 
presence and his opinions, then gives him power by which he 
does a monstrous wrong to a good man and his family. 
But if Satan's part is bad God's is worse. He is the author 
of all of Job's miseries. If God had been just, he would not 
have led off to his Satanic Majesty with such a temptation 
as to ask him his opinion of Job. It was immaterial what 
his opinion was ; but it was all important that if there were 
a God in Israel that he should protect and honor the "per- 
fect" man, Job. 

But aside from the barbarities of this mvth, look at its 
childish absurdities. How could the omniscient, whose eyes 
are in every place, beholding the evil and the good, need to 
ask Satan where he came from! Was not God, the omni- 
present, everywhere on earth ? If Satan had been going up 
and down the country would 1^ not of necessity have met 
God again and again ? Obviously these great opponents must 
have often met. Again, it was useless for God to ask Satan 
what his opinion of Job was, or would be after he tested 
him, as he knows all things past, present, and to come, in 
heaven, earth and hell (I mean hades). It is evident that 
Satan's opinion is not needed or cared for, because after all 
the trials Job suffered were ended, there is not one word 
^ven as to what Satan's opinion of Job was, and yet in tho 
[)eginning of the story this seems to be its sole object. 
After Job suffers a long time from bodily sores and "miser- 
able comforters" Satan vanishes from the scene in a very 
obscure way, and God blesses Job with twice as much as he 
liad before. He had more sheep, more camels, more oxen, 
and more asses. He became father of. seven sons and three 
daughters, the same number of sons and daughters that 
were slain by Satan, instigated by God. Why were these 
ten innocent persons murdered ? Had they no rights that 



a just God "was bound to reepect? Shall not the judge of 
all the earth do right? Certainly he ought to. But in this 
case the judge pleads guilty of this crime. In reply to Satan 
God says: "Although thou movedst me against him to 
destroy him without cause.'' (Job 2: 3.) Here is an 
unqualified confession of wronging Job and his children 
without a show of justice; and even the cattle, I imagine, 
would protest against the outrageous slaughter perpe- 
trated on them. If these asses were like Balaam's, I am 
sure they would enter suit for damages. 

"So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than 
his beginning, for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six 
thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thou- 
sand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters. " 
(Job 42 : 12, 13.) It is clear that the Lord had nothing to 
do whatever with these blessings. Job had had sheep, cam- 
els, oxen, asses, and children before, without any assistance 
from the Lord ; and if he secured a similar stock of cattle 
and a family of children it was by his own management and 

But supposing them a gift from God as damages sus- 
tained by Job at the hand of Satan through the instigation 
of God, yet they could not assuage his grief for the loved 
(mes ruthlessly torn from his embrace. It is easy to see that 
this story is nothing more tlian an oriental tale — a mytli. 
It is wanting not only in fact, but it teaches very bad mor- 
als. There is nothing ennobling in it. 1. God had no moral 
right to permit Satan to come unrebuked into the company 
of the sons of God. An earthly father teaches his children 
to avoid "evil<;ommunications," but on this occasion the 
heavenly father did not scorn the company of Satan, but 
treated him respectfully. 2. Again, the infinite being would 
not need to ask the Devil what his opinion of Job was, for 
he would know beforehand. 3. The infinitely good being 
would not want the Devil's opinion— nor would he value it a 
straw, if it were given before it was asked. 4. Tli(>» infinitely 
just i-ulcr of the universe would not give the great adver- 


sary of man and God such diabolical power over that " per- 
fect and upright man" Job. Nor would he have permitted 
the three "miserable comforters," reehng mentally under the 
blind staggers of a blind theology, to have added more tor- 
ment to that imposed by his Satanic Majesty.- Nor would 
he have permitted him to murder the seven sons and tliree 
daughters, as a mere matter of experiment in testing Job's 
staying powers. All this is so horrible that the afterthought 
of more camels and asses, as a compensation is an insuffi- 
cient patch to cover the unqualified wrongs done to the man 
of Uz. Even Job does not shine as conspicuously in all this 
as he should. Job ought to have protested with all his 
might and main against both God and Devil, that his indi- 
vidual rights were invaded. He should have taken a change 
of venue, to have a hearing before some other god, where 
there was a slight hope of securing more justice. But he 
didn't and the consequence is we are all advised, when suffer- 
ing the outrageous wrongs of despotism, to "be patient like 
Job." It has been a great evil to the human family that 
Job w^as no "kicker; " it has opened wide the flood gates of 
tyranny, and transfused the cowardly blood of sheep into 
the veins of men. Oh, that Job had kicked and taken an 
appeal, what an inspiration it would be to the fold of God 
now, to resist the shears of the fleecers 1 to rebel against the 
rule of robbers ! 

Some questions to be answered by the man who pounds 
the Bible and claims to understand the Greek scriptures : 

1. Who were the sons of God? 

2. How many were there present, and were there still 
more of them elsewhere? 

3. Where did they come from? 

4. Were they any relation to the people of Nod? 

5. Who were their mothers ? 

6. What were their occupations? 

7. Where are they now ? 

8. Where did the Devil come from? 

9. Did God create him or did he make himself? 


10. If God made him then is he not responsible for all 
that old Nick does ? 

11. K he is as terribly demoniacal as orthodox theol- 
ogy describes him, "why in '1 don't God kill the Devil? " 

12. If he cannot kill him does it not prove that the 
Devil is his match ; and if he ican, but will not, does it not 
prove that he sustains him and approves of his work ? 

13. In the light of modern theology is not the Devil 
almost always successful ? Does he not have a larger king- 
dom, a larger following than God ? 

14. Why did the Creator inflict such a heUish punish- 
ment upon Adam and Eve, and let the Serpent off so lightly? 

15. Has the punishment inflicted upon the Devil less- 
ened his power? 

16. Have the curses which God has pronounced on the 
world made it better? 

17. Is there any place in the record, accounts of the 
Devil's stealing, robbing, and murdering ? 

18. Are there not numerous stories in the Bible recount- 
ing the robberies and murders perpetrated in the name and 
by the sanction of God? Some times the people of God 
destroyed five thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand, 
fifty thousand, seventy thousand, and in one instance six 
hundred and seventy thousand, as in the case of Pharaoh 
and his hosts in the Red sea. Did Satan ever try to do any- 
thing as hellish as this ? 

19. Is the Devil the father of lies? When did he tell a 
deliberate falsehood? To Eve? Oh no, it was the other 
party who did that business. 

20. Did he lie when he took Jesus up into an exceeding 
high mountain, etc., and saith unto him, "All these will I 
give thee," etc.? (Mat. 4: 8.) It is claimed that old Beel- 
zebub lied on this occasion. It would hit the bull's eye in the 
center if we were to say that the writer of this story about 
Josus being carried off bodily into an exceeding high moun- 
tain, was the boy responsible for this lie. But without 
resting the case there L't us soo how it opens out. Tt is 


urged that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof;" 
but it maybe urged that the Devil is called "theprinceof this 
world," implying that he has just claims both by conquest 
and possession ; and therefore he could have given at least 
a quitclaim deed. 

The Devil is an expensive luxury of the church. It costs 
about 11,000,000,000 annually for preaching against the 
Devil. Even if there is less said derogatory to his Satanic 
Majesty now-adays, yet it costs just as much, and more too, 
for drawing it mild, than it did formerly, for describing the 
split hoof, horns, and spear-headed tail, hell, etc. Notwith- 
standing the fact that the people want less Devil and more 
bread and beef, yet they must have some Devil. Hence the 
church clings to its Devil-idol with which to scare the people. 
To give up the Devil is to break up house-keeping all around. 
If there be no Devil then there is no hell ; and if no hell, there 
is no salvation; and if no salvation there isnoneed of preach- 
ing ; and ' ' no preach no pay . ' ' Hov/ could a fat minister with 
a fat salary, look such a ghost as that in the face ? Yes, it 
would be impossible for the church to survive without the 
Devil. The clergy have to fall back upon him in times of 
revival to stir up the fears of uninformed people. 

The Devil has had many hard names heaped upon him, 
for example : The Tempter ; the Adversary or Satan ; Beel- 
zebub ; the Prince of Devils ; the Strong One ; the Enemy, 
or the Hostile One ; the Serpent ; Lying Spirit ; Lucifer ; Son. 
of the Morning ; Prince of Darkness ; Prince of the Power 
of the Air ; the Accuser ; Angel of the Bottomless Pit ; Angel 
of Light; Mammon; Belial; Legion; the Foul Spirit; the 
Unclean Spirit; the God of this World; the Great Bed 
Dragon; Abaddon; Apollyon, the Destroyer, etc. Besides 
these sacred titles, he is equally well known by certain 
house-hold names, as, Old Nick; Old Splitfoot; the Old 
Scratch; Old Harry; Old Horny; the Old Boy; the Deuce; 
the Dickens ; auld Clouty; Nickie ; Ben ; his Satanic Majesty, 
etc. It must be confessed that these names do not carry 
much sanctity with them, nor do they leave us in love with 


the character they represent. But before we proceed further, 
it is only simple justice (that is giving the Devil his due), to 
call attention to the various names by which God has been 

The early Hebrew literature speaks of gods, not God. 
We find the following names ascribed to them : El; Elohim ; 
El Shaddai; Shaddai; Elvoh; Yahve, or Jah. The follow- 
ing is a personal photograph as nearly as we can draw it, of 
the Jewish Jehovah as described in the Bible: "There went 
up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth de- 
voured: coals were kindled by it." (Ps. 18: 8.) " "Round 
about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." 
(Ps. 18 : 11.) " His head and his hairs were white like wool, 
as white as snow ; and his eyes were as a flame of fire. ' ' (Rev. 
i : 14.) " And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned 
in a furnace." (Rev. 1: 15.) "He had horns coming out 
of his hand." (Hab. 3:4.) " And burning coals went forth 
at his feet." (Hab. 3:5.) "In the midst of the seven candle- 
sticks one like unto the son of man, clothed with a garment 
down to the foot and girt about the paps with a golden 
girdle." (Rev. 1: 13.) " And he had in his right hand seven 
stars; and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword." 
(Rev. 1: 16.) 

This God has violated all the moral laws he ever gave 
to man. He approved of lying, robbing, adultery, murder, 
wa.r, and all the great crimes known to man. 

Is it any wonder that Theodore I^arker should say to 
the Calvinist who was trying to convert him, "The differ- 
ence between us is simple,— your God is my Devil.'' 

The reader has his choice— or he may say "good Lortl 
good Devil," and float with the current. There is, however, 
no disguising the fact that ])etween God and the Devil, a,s 
described in the Bible, the Devil sustains the better moral 
character of the two. He is not spotless and clean, it is 
true, but he has infinitely less bloodshed to answer for than 


Where the Devil did he come from ? I am reminded of 
this form of expression by a little incident related of a Scotch 
preacher, who took for liis text, on one occasion, the follow- 
ing passage: "The Devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about 
seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8.) It must be 
borne in mind, in order to better understand the full force 
and beauty of the preacher's division of the text into three 
heads, that it was common in earlier times to repeat the pro- 
noun in a sentence, for example, John Smith, his book, Mary 
she has come home, etc. In charming accord with this old 
style, the minister divided his text into three parts. He said, 
''My brethren, we will first inquire Avhere the Devil he was 
walking to? and secondly, who the Devil he wanted to 
devour? and thirdly, what the Devil he was roaring 

Having gratuitiously thrown in this gem, we proceed to 
answer the question, "Where the Devil, did he come from? " 

It is evident that the earlier Hebrew literature is almost 
wholly free from anytraces of a personal Devil, and that later 
writings of the same people show strong outline of such a 
personality of evil. 

W^hile it is true that Satan is a Hebrew word, it is 
equally true that the word does not denote a being at all, 
but means anything adverse or opposing. We may cite in 
illustration a few passages. Second Samuel 1 9 : 22: "David 
said, What have we to do with you, ye sons of Jeremiah, 
that ye should this day be adversaries unto me?" First 
Kings 11 : 14 : " And Jehovah stirred up an adversary unto 
Solomon, Hadad the Adomite." First Kings 11 : 23 : "And 
God stirred up anotizer adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah." 

In these instances, the word rendered adversarv or adver- 
saries,is Satan, and means nothing more than an opponent. 

When the Jews were carried captives to Babylon, they 
came into immediate contact with a people, the Persians, 
who believed in a good being and a bad one. Ormazd was 
their good God, and Ahriman their Devil. The latter was 
as clearly defined in the duality of Zoroastrian theology, as 


the former. During their seventy years' captivity it could 
not be otherwise, than that the enslaved people should im- 
bibe some of the customs and beliefs of their masters. If 
they went so far as to change the characters of their lan- 
guage from the original Hebrew letters to those of the 
Chaldas, it is easy to see that they would of course, adopt 
this notion of an evil principle and personality, so preva- 
lent at that time in Chaldea. After the Babylonian exile the 
doctrine of a Devil became a part of the Jewish belief, and 
the evil spirit was termed Satan, as he was the foe or adver- 
sary of God . In First Chronicles 21:1, there is a circumstance 
related in which Satan or the Devil is the principal agent. 
The words are: "And Satan stood up against Isreal and 
provoked David to number Israel." Now the book of Chron- 
icles being written after the captivity, it w^as quite natural 
that the writer should consider and designate the enemy of 
God, the Devil or Satan. But the same event is mentioned 
in another of the Jewish books, written before the captivity, 
and the temptation of David is referred to entirely another 
being. Here the words are: 

"And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, 
and moved David against them, to say, *Go number Israel and 
Judah,' Thus in the earlier books, the affair is attributed to the 
Lord, but in the books Avritten after the Jewish connection \fith 
the Chaldeans and Persians, Satan is blamed for the same a<;t. 
This, beyond doubt proves the source of the Christian superstition 
respecting the Devil." (" The Devil," by John Watts.) 

"With this dualistic system the Jews came in contact during 
their captivity at Babylon, and are supposed to have retained 
permanent traces of it in their subsequent theologv. The concep- 
tion of the Devil and of a lower kingdom of demons or devils is the 
evident illustration of this. (Ency. Brit. V. Devil.) 

"The reason why there was no Devil in the early books wa« 
because none was needed then. The gods considered themselves 
as being quite equal to any emergency that might arise in the way^ 
of wickedness."— M. D. Conway. 

In other words, the Devil is a myth coming out of the 
terrible darkness of remote ages. Every fear that the prim- 

'fHE DEVIL. 215 

itive man and men of barbarous races have had, painted 
devils before their minds of every description. The master 

mind has said: 

"'Tis the eye of child-hood 

That fears a painted Devil." 
The thought that millions of people commonly well 
informed on general matters, still believe in this barbar- 
ous myth, must shock and oppress like an incubus every 
sensitive and well-informed mind. Such people can smile 
pleasantly over the homely myth of Santa Claus, but the 
Devil is altogether a different personage. An old lady was 
once told that the Devil was dead. She sat silent for a 
moment, and then replied, " Well, you may think so, but 
we hope for better things." 

As the horrid doctrine of witchcraft under the light of 
advancing knowledge has had to retire into the background 
of oblivion; as the Puritan doctrine of infant damnation 
has been relegated to the limbo of f orgetfulness ; as hell's 
fire has burned to ashes and the ashes become cold, so too, 
is the doctrine of a personal Devil retreating from the minds 
of all sensible people. 




"What is, and "Where is the Soul P 

Until the Greek philosophy taught the world how to use and 
abuse abstract notions, immaterialism was not an attainable 
phase of thought. (Prof. Bain, "^lind and Body," p. 143.) 

Thought necessarily supposes conditions. To think is to con- 
dition, and conditional limitation is the fundamental law of the 
possibility of thought. For, as the greyhound cannot outstrip his 
shadoNV, nor (by a more appropriate simile) the eagle out-soar the 
atmosphere in which he floats, and by which alone he may be sup- 
ported; so the mind cannot transcend the sphere of limitation, 
within and through which exclusively the possibility of thought is 
realized. (Sir William Hamilton, "Philosophy" p. 456.) 

In this paper an attempt is made to answer two very 
important questions, namely: What is, and where is the 
soul? in such fashion that everybody will be satisfied that 
he has a soul, and the exact spot it occupies in his mundane 
tabernacle. Here are a number of opinions on this subject, 
by the most learned men the world has ever produced. In 
a multitude of counsel there is wisdom. The first witness 1 
shall put upon the stand is : 

Pythagoras: (6th c. B. C.) The soul is number and a 
harmony. Taught the doctrine of metempsychosis. His 
disciples held the soul to be an aggregate of particles of 
great subtilty pervading the air in constant agitation. 

Heraclitus : (0th c. B. C.) The soul is a spark of tlio st-el- 
lar essence : " Scintilla stellaris essentia." 



Pherecides : (6th c. B. C.) Souls existed from all eternity. 

Anaximenes: (Ionic philosopher, 5th c. B. C.) God is 
air, air is a life-giving principle to man. The soul is air. 

Diogenes of Appollonia: (Greek natural philosopher, 
5th c. B. C.) The soul of the world and the soul of man is 

Anaxagoras: (5th c. B. C.) The soul is an immortal, 
aerial spirit. 

Socrates : (4th'c. B. C.) The soul is corporeal and eternal. 

Epicurus: (4th c. B. C.) The soul is a bodily substance, 
composed of subtile particles, disseminated through the 
whole frame, and having a great resemblance to spirit or 

Empedocles : (Sicilian philosopher and poet, 5thc. B. C.) 
Declared himself to have been " a boy, a girl, a bush, a bird, 
a fish;" that the soul inhabits every form of animal and 

Aristotle: (4th c. B. C.) Plants have souls without con- 
sciousness. Animals have souls, but inseparable from body. 
The human body is inseparable from mind, but the human 
mind is divided into active and passive intellect. The active 
intellect is pure form, detached from matter, and immortal. 

Josephus: (1st c.) There were three sects among the 
Jews— the Pharisees, Sadduces, and the Essenes. The Phar- 
isees believed in metempsychosis; the Sadduces believed 
that the soul perished with the body ; the Essenes held that 
the soul was immortal. The soul descended in an aerial 
form into the body, from the highest region of the air, 
whither they were carried back again by a violent attrac- 
tion, and after death those which had belonged to the good 
dwelled beyond the ocean in a country where there was 
neither heat nor cold, nor wind nor rain. 

Pliny : (2dc.) The body and the soul have, from the mo- 
ment of death, as little sensation as before birth. 

Justin Martyr : (2d c.) It is heresy to say that the &ouI 
is taken up into heaven, men rise with the same bodies. 


Tatian: (2dc.) There are two spirits conjoined in the 
human body. A material and an immaterial spirit. 

Athenagoras: (2dc.) The soul is spiritual, but with a 
spirituality subject to material tendencies. 

Origen : (3d c.) The soul is neither spirit nor matter. 

Augustine: (4thc.) The soul has neither length, breadth, 
nor thickness. It acts on the body through the corporeal 
substances of light and air, which substances are mingled 
through the denser parts of the body. The commands of 
the soul are first communicated to this subtile matter, and 
by it immediately conveyed to the heavier elements. 

Tertulhan: (Latin father, about IGO.) The soul has the 
human form, the same as its body, only it is delicate, clear, 
and ethereal. Unless it were corporeal, how could it be ef- 
fected by the body, be able to suffer, or be nourished within 
the body? 

St. Ambrose: (4th c.) We know nothing but what is 
material, excepting only the ever venerable Trinity. 

St. Hilary: (5th c.) There is nothing created which is 
not corporeal, neither in heaven nor in earth, neither visible 
nor invisible ; all is formed of elements; and souls, whether 
they inhabit a body, or are without a body, have always a 
corporeal substance. 

Gregory Nazianzen: (4th c.) Soul, or spirit, is composed 
of two properties— motion and diffusion. 

Bishop Nemesius: (5th c.) The soul is an immaterial 
substandb. It is involved, as Plato taught, in eternal, self- 
produced motion, from which the motion of the body is 
derived. The pre-existence of the soul proves its supra- 
sensible character, and its immortality. 

Faustus: (Bishop of Regium, in Gaul, A. D. 470.) All 
created things are matter ; the soul being composed of air, 
God alone is incorporeal. 

Mamertus: (In reply to the bishop.) Man was made in 
the image of God. Now, as there can be no likeness to God 
in matter, therefore it must be found in the soul, therefore 
the soul is immaterial. The soul is present in every part of 

What is, A^i© where is the soul? 2l9 

the body as well as in the whole, just as God is present in 
the whole universe, otherwise a part of it would be lost when 
any portion of the body is cutoff. The soul is not contained 
in the body, but in reality contains it. Hence, it must be 
immaterial, for no material substance can at once contain 
the body and be within it as its animating principle. 

Thomas Aquinas: (13th c.) The soul is the Actuality 
of body, as heat, which is the source whence bodies are 
made hot, is not body, but a sort of actuality of body. 
The soul of man is an independent substance. 

Duns Scotus: (13th c. British philosopher.) The soul 
is a created something, the basis of all finite existence, in- 
cluding corporeal matter itself. 

Albert Magnus : (13th c.) Held that the active intellect 
is a part of the soul, and is immortal by virtue of its com- 
munity with God. 

Gassendi: (French philosopher, 17th c.) There is no 
evidence of the spirituality of the soul. 

Malebranche: (Priest and philosopher, 17th c.) We see 
all in God, who is in fact our soul. 

Locke: (17th c.) Matter may think, and God may com- 
municate thought to matter. 

Paracelsus: (15th c.) Taught there were four souls- 
vegetal, sensitive, rational, and spiritual. Campanella 
demonstrates this last by the fact that carcasses bleed at 
the sight of the murderer. 

Mansel: ("Philosophy of Consciousness," p. 327.) We 
are not authorized to say that we know the soul to be sim- 
ple, and that, therefore, it is indestructible ; but only that 
we do not know the soul to be compound, and, therefore, 
that we cannot infer its mortality from the analogy of 
bodily dissolution. • 

"Buck's Theo. Die." defines soul: That vital, immate- 
rial, active substance, or principle in man, whereby he 
perceives, remembers, reasons, and wills. It is rather to 
be described as to its operations than to be defined as to 


its essence. Various, indeed, have been the opinions of phi- 
losophers concerning its substance. 

Parkhurst: (A distinguished Hebrew lexicographer.) As 
a noun, nepbesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual 
part of man, or what we commonly call the soul. I must, 
for myself, confess that I can find no passage where it hath 
undoubtedly this meaning. 

Hobbes : Spirit is synonymous with ghost — a mere phan- 
tom of the imagination. 

Locke: ("Understanding," p. 419.) AVe can no more 
know that there are finite spirits really existing, by the idea 
wo have of such things in our minds, than by the ideas any 
one has of fairies, or centaurs ; he can come to know that 
things answering those ideas do really exist. 

Voltaire: The Greeks distinguish three sorts of souls— 
Psyche, signifying the sensitive soul— the soul of the senses ; 
hence it was that Love, the son of Aphrodite, had so much 
passion for Psyche, and that she loved him so tenderly. 
Pneuma, the breath which gave life and motion to the whole 
machine, and which we have rendered by iSpiritu-s— spirit— a 
vague term which has received a thousand different accepta- 
tions. And lastly, Nous, intelligence. Thus we possess 
three souls, without having the slightest notion of any of 
them. . . . What are we to think of a child with two 
heads, which is otherwise well formed? Some say that it 
has two souls, because it is furnished with two pineal glands, 
with two callous substances, with two sensoria communia. 
Others answer, that there cannot be two souls with but one 
breast and one navel. . . . The word soul is one of those 
which everyone pronounces without understanding it. We 
understand those things of which we have an idea, but we 
have no idea of soul— spirit; therefore, we do not under- 
stand it. 

John Calvin: The soul is an immortal essence, the nobler 
part of man. It is a creation out of nothing, not an ema- 
nation; it is essence without motion, not motion without 
essence. It is not properly bounded by space, still it occu- 


pies the body as a habitation, animating its parts and 
endowing its organs for their several functions. 

Dugald Stewart: vVltliough we have the strongest evi- 
dence that there is a thinking and sentient principle within 
us, essentially distinct from matter, yet we have no direct 
evidence of the possibility of this principle exercising its 
various powers in a separate state from the body. On the 
contrary, the union of the two, while it subsists, is evidently 
of the most intimate nature. 

Joseph Priestly: It being a rigid canon of the Newtonian 
logic not to multiply causes without necessity, we should ad- 
here to a single substance until it be shown, which cannot 
be, that the properties of mind are incompatible with the 
properties of matter. He was opposed to protecting and 
perpetuating absurdity by dodging behind mystery. That 
there is no difference between spiritual substance and noth- 
ing at all. That the doctrine of a separate soul embarrasses 
the whole system of Christianity. 

McBeth : The times have been that when the brains were 
out the man would die, and there an end. 

Buchner : Experience and daily occupation teach us that 
the spirit perishes with the material substratum — that man 
dies. ( " Matter and Force." ) 

Burmeister : That the soul of a deceased person does not 
re-appear after death, is not contested by rational people. 
Spirits and ghosts are only seen by diseased or supersti- 
tious individuals. 

Vogt: Physiology decides definitely and categorically 
against individual immortality, as against any special ex- 
istence of the soul. The soul does not enter the foetus like 
the evil spirit into persons possessed, but is a product of the 
development of the brain, just as muscular activity is a 
product of muscular development. So soon as the sub- 
stances composing the brain are aggregated in a similar 
form, will thej exhibit the same functions. We have seen 
that we can destroy mental activity by injuring the brain. 
By observing the development of the child we also arrive at 


the conviction that the activity of the soul progresses in 
proportion as the brain is gradually developed. The foetus 
manifests no mental activity, which only shows itself after 
birth when the brain acquires the necessary material condi- 
tion. Mental acti^dty changes with the period of life, and 
ceases altogether at death. 

Lecky : ( "Rat. in Europe," p. 341, v. I.) Not one of the 
early fathers entertained the same opinion as the majority 
of Christians do of the present day, that the soul is perfectly 
simple, and entirely destitute of all body, figure, form, and 
extension. On the contrary, they all acknowledged it to 
contain something corporeal, although of a different kind 
and nature from the bodies of this mortal sphere. . . . 
Tertullian mentions a woman who had seen a soul, which 
she described as " a transparent and lucid figure, in the per- 
fect form of a man." St. Anthony saw the soul of Ammon 
carried up to heaven. The soul of a Libyan hermit named 
Marc was borne to heaven in a iiaj^kin. Angels also were 
not unfrequently seen, and were universally believed to have 
cohabited with the daughters of the antediluvians. . . . 
Sometimes the soul was portrayed as a sexless child, rising 
out of the mouth of the corpse. 

John Meslier: ("Testimony of a Dying Priest.") The 
barbarians, like all ignorant men, attribute to spirits all the 
effects of which their inexperience prevents them from discov- 
ering the true causes. Ask a barbarian what causes your 
watch to move, he will answer, "A spirit." Ask our philos- 
ophers what moves the universe, they Avill tell you, " It is a 
spirit." Ask a theologian what he means by a spirit. He will 
answer that it is an unknown substance, which is perfectly 
simple, which has nothing tangible, nothing in common with 
matter. In good faith, is there any mortal who can form the 
least idea of such a substance. 

James F. Ferrier: (Institutes of Metaphysics.) In vain 
does the Spiritualist found an argument for the existence of 
a Hcparate immaterial substance on the alleged incompati- 
bility of ihe intellectual and physical phenomena to co-inhere 


in the same sub-stratum. Materiality may very well stand 
the brunt of that unshotted broadside. This mild artifice 
can scarcely expect to be treated as a serious observation. 
Such a hypothesis cannot be meant to be in earnest. Who 
is to dictate to nature what phenomena, or what quahtios 
inhere in what substances; what effects ma}^ result from 
what causes? Matter is already in the field as an acknoxvl- 
edged entity— this both parties admit. Mind, considered as 
an independent entity, is not so unmistakably in the field. 
Therefore as entities are not to be multiphed without neces- 
sity, we are not entitled to postulate a new cause, so long 
as it is possible to account for the phenomena by a cause 
already in existence; which possibihty has never yet been 

Draper: (John William.) Chemistry furnishes us with a 
striking example of the doctrine of Diogenes of Apollonia, 
that the air is actually a spiritual being ; for, on the discov- 
ery of several of the gases by the early experimenters, they 
were not only regarded as of a spiritual nature, but actually 
received the name under which they pass to this day, gheist 
or gas, from a belief that they were ghosts. ( "Int. Dev.," 
p. 103, V. 1.) 

W.R. Grove: ( " Correlation and Conservation of Forces," 
p. 103.) The ancients when they witnessed natural phenom- 
enon, removed from ordinary analogies, and unexplained by 
any mechanical action known to them, referred it to a soul, 
a spiritual or preternatural power: thus amber and the mag- 
net were supposed by Thalestohave a soul ; the functions of 
digestion, assimilation, etc., were supposed by Paracelsus to 
be effected by a spirit (the Archeeus) . Air and gases were also 
at first deemed spiritual, but subsequently became invested 
with a more material character, and the word gas, fromgeist, 
aghostor spirit, affords us an instance of the gradual trans- 
mission of a spiritual into a physical conception. 

Buchner : Now, in the same manner as the steam engine 
produces motion, so does the organic complication of force- 
endowed materials produce in the animal body a sum of 


effects, so intenvoven as to become a unit, and is then by us 
called spirit, soul, thought. 

Taylor : Mr. Darwin saw two Malay women in Keeling 
Island, who had a wooden spoon dressed in clothes like a 
doll. This spoon had been earned to the grave of a dead 
man, and becoming inspired at full moon, in fact lunatic, it 
danced about convulsively like a table or a hat at a modern 
spirit-seacce. ( ''Early History of Mankind," p. 139, v. 2.) 
Savages believe that their pots, kettles, pans, etc., have 
souls. His knives, tobacco-pipes, the winds, water, fire, 
storm, etc., have souls. 

Samuel Johnson: ("Oriental Religions," p. 543.) Vari- 
ous North-American tribes believe that the soul of a dying 
person may be drawn into the bosom of a sterile woman, or 
blown by the breath into that of the nearest relative, and 
so come again to birth in the way that the receiver desires. 

Theodore Parker, John Wesley, Jeremy Taylor, Cole- 
ridge, Lamartine, Agassiz, and hosts of other men well 
known to fame, taught that animals as well as men, had 
immortal souls. 

Brodie: (President of the Royal Society, 1858.) The 
mind of animals is essentially the same as that of man. 
Every one familiar with the dog will admit that that creat- 
ure knows right from wrong, and is conscious when he has 
committed a fault. 

Du Bois-Reymond : With awe and wonder must the stu- 
dent of nature regard that microscopic molecule of nervous 
substance which is the seat of the laborious, constructive, 
orderly, loyal, dauntless soul of the ant. It has developed 
itself to its present state through a countless series of 

John Fiske: But the propriety of identifying soul and 
breath, which really quits the body at its decease, has fur- 
nished the chief name for the soul, not only to the Hebrew, 
the Sanskrit, and the classic tongues ; not only to German 
and English, where goist, and ghost, according to Max 
Muller, have the meaning of ''breath," and are akin to such 


v^ordsasgas, gust, and geyser; but also to numerous bar- 
baric languages. ("Myths and Myth-Makers," p. 225.) 
The belief in wraiths was survived into modern times, and 
now and then appears in that remnant of primeval philos- 
ophy known as "Spiritualism," as for example, in the case 
of the lady who "thought she saw'her own father look in at 
the church window at the moment he was dying at his owii 
house." (lb., p. 229.) The Kamtchadales expressly declare 
that all animals, even flies and bugs, will live after death,— a 
belief, which, in our day, has been indorsed on philosophical 
grounds by an eminent living naturalist. (lb., 230.) [Mr. 
Fiske refers to Agassiz.] 

M. Figuier : Human souls are for the most part the sur- 
viving souls of deceased animals; in general, the souls of 
precocious children like Mozart come from nightingales, 
while the souls of great architects have passed into them 
from beavers, and etc., etc. ( "The To-morrow of Death," 
p. 247.) 

W. Lauder Lindsay: By no kind of scientific evidence 
can it be proved that soul exists, whether in man or other 
animals. . . Nor should it be forgott<?n that, according to 
many writers, the word or term "soul" is regarded as 
synonymous with "mind," in which case there can be no 
question as to its possession by the higher animals. AVhile 
the term "soul" has also been applied— in figurative senses 
no doubt— even to plants. ( ' ' Mind in the Lower Animals, " ' v. 
1, p. 101.) It obviously lies with those who assert dogmat- 
ically that all men have immortal souls, while no animals 
possess them, to reconcile with such a conviction the prov- 
able fact that many animals are superior to many men, not 
only in general intelligence, but also as regards moral sense 
and religious feeling. (lb.) Ideas of Justice or right, feelings 
of decency or shame, that combination or essence of moral 
qualities known as conscience, are as certainly present in 
some animals as they appear to be absent in countless num- 
bers of men. (lb., p. 103.) 


Ernst Haeckel: The final result o! this comparison is 
this : That between the most highly developed animal souls, 
and the lowest developed human souls there exists only a 
small quantita.tive, but no quaUtative difference, and this 
difference is much less than the difference between the lowest 
and the highest human souls, or than the difference between 
the lowest and the highest animal souls. ("Hist, of Crea- 
tion," V. 2, p. 362.) Some of the wildest tribes, of men, in 
Southern Asia and Eastern Africa have no trace whatever 
of the first foundations of all human civilization of family 
life, and marriage. They live together, in herds, like apes, 
generally climbing on trees and eating fruits ; they do not 
know of fire, and use stones and clubs as weapons, just like 
the higher apes. (lb., p. 363.) 

Descartes : (17 c.) Matter, whose essence is extension, is 
known by the senses; mind, whose essence is thinking, can 
be known only by self-consciousness. The thinking prin- 
ciple is immaterial. 

Origen : The nature of the soul is such as to make her 
capable of existing eternally, backward as well as forward, 
because her spiritual essence, as such, makes it impossible 
that she should, either through age or violence, be dissolved. 

Rev. Joseph Bayloe, D. D.: (Principal of St. Aidan's Col- 
lege, Birkenhead, England.) Man is eternal. He was in 
existence before ho was born; sinned before he was born, 
and if he had never been born would have suffered eternal 
damnation for that sin. (Dis. on God and the Bible between 
Dr. Baylee and Mr. Bradlaugh.) 

Draper: ("Conflict," p. 127.) Moreover, to many devout 
persons there is something very revolting in the suggestion 
that the Almighty is a servitor to the caprices and lusts of 
men, and that at a certain term after its origin, it is neces- 
sary for him to create for the embryo a soul. 

Vedic Theology : The soul is a particle of that all-pervad- 
ing principle, the Universal Intellect, or Soul of the World, 
detached for a while from its primitive source; and placed in 
connection with the bodily frame, but destined, by an inevi- 


tably as rivers run back to be lost in the ocean from 
whence they arose. 

The Bible: As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth 
away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no 
more. (Job 7: 9.) They are dead, they shall not live ; they 
are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited 
and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. 
(Isa. 26 : 14.) For the living know that they shall die, but 
the dead knovv^ not anything, neither have they any more a 
reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever 
thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no 
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave 
whither thou goest. (Eccl. 9: 5, 10.) For that which be- 
falleth the sons of men befalleth beasts, even one thing 
befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, 
they have all one breath ; so that a man hath no pre-emi- 
nence above a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place, 
all are of the dust and all turn to dust again. Who know- 
eth the spirit of man that goeth upward ; and the spirit of 
the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3: 
19-22.) There (the grave) the wicked cease from troub- 
ling; and there the weary be at rest. (Vide Job 3 : 11-22.) 

Having thus successfully responded to the interroga- 
tory, What is the soul? that is to say, the constituent 
•thereof, let us now very briefly settle the locus in quo: 

Plato : The soul is located in the brain. 

Aristotle : The soul is located in the heart. 

Heraclitus : The soul is located in the blood. 

Epicurus : The soul is located in the chest. 

Critios : The soul is located in the blood. 

Sommering : The soul is located in the ventricles. 

Kant : The soul is located in the water contained in the 

Plotinus : The body is located in the soul, and not the 
soul in the body. 

Ennemoser : The whole body is the seat of the soul. 

Fischer : The soul is located in the nervous system. 


Ficinus : The soul is located in the heart. 

Descartes : The soul is located in the pineal gland. 

Boutekoe : The soul is located in the corpus callosuiu. 

Willis : The soul is located in the corpora striata. 

Vieussens : The soul is located in the centrum ovale. 

Boerhaave : The soul is located on the boundary line of 
the gray and white substance. 

Maver : The soul is loca,ted in the medulla oblongata. 

Camper: The soul is located in the pineal gland, Bates 
and testes. 

Dohoney : Scientifically speaking, man is a threefold be- 
ing: body, soul, and spirit. The home of the spirit is the 
cerebrum, while the seat of the soul is the cerebellum. 
("Man," p. 118.) 

La Pieronie : The dwelling place of the soul is in the 
callous body. 

Buchner: Some authors imagine that the soul, under 
certain circumstances, leaves the brain for a short time and 
occupies another part of the nervous system. The solar 
plexus, a concatenation of sympathetic nerves, situated in 
the abdomen, was especially pointed out as the favored 
spot. ( " Force and Matter," p. 195.) 

Prochaska : Assumed that the cerebrum and the cerebel- 
lum were the seat of "soul sensations," and the sensoriuni 
commune the seat of " body sensations." 

Whytt : As the schoolmen supposed the Deity to exist in 
every ubi but not in any place, which is to say in Latin 
that he exists everywhere, but in English nowhere, so thoy 
imagined the soul of man not to occupy space, but to exist 
in an indivisible point. 

Prof. Erdmann : The theory that the soul has its seat in 
the brain, must lead to the result that when the body is sep- 
arated from the head, the soul should continue to exist. 

Fortlage: There are certain errors in the human mind. 

The error of the seat of the soul in the brain is one of them. 

McCulloch says, in his able work on the "Credibility of 

the Scriptures " : There is no word in the Hebrew language 



that signifies either sonl or spirit, in the technical sense in 
which we use the terms, as implying something distinct from 
the body. ( " CredibiHty of Scriptures," p. 491, v. 2.) 

Kitto,inhis "Cyclopedia of Biblical Lileratiiro," renders 
Genesis 2: 7, as follows: "And Jehovah God formed the 
man [Heb. the Adam] of dust from the ground, and blew 
into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a 
living nnimal. 

Bishop Tilotson says: The immortality of the soul is 
rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly re- 
vealed in the Bible. 

The Egyptian doctrine of the soul is one of the most 
important, as it is the most ancient, for this nation seems 
to have been the first to declare that the soul was immortal. 
(Chambers' Encyclopedia.) B. Peterson. 


There is still another question. Why should God, a being of 
infinite tenderness, leave the question of immortality in doubt? 
How is it that there is nothing in the Old Testament on this sub- 
ject? Why is it that he who made all the constellations did not 
put in his heaven the star of hope? How do you account for the 
fact that you do not find in the Old Testament, from the first 
mistake in Genesis to the last curse in Malachi, a funeral service? 
Is it not strange that some one in the Old Testament did not 
stand by an open grave of father or mother and say, "We shall 
meet again"? Was it because the divinely inspired men did not 
know? You taunt me by saying that I know no more of the im- 
mortality of the soul than Cicero knew. I admit it. I know no 
more than the lowest savage, no more than a doctor of divinity, 
that is to say, nothing. — Ingersoll, Ingereoll-Field Discussion. 

Some urge that the soul is life. Yvliat is life? Is it not the 
word by which we express the aggregate normal functional ac- 
tivity of vegetable and animal organisms, necessarily differing in 
degree, if not in kind, with each different organization? To talk 
of immortal life, and yet to admit the decay and destruction of 


tlio organization, is much thf .same as to talk of a square circle. 
You link together two "words which contradict each other. The 
solution of the soul problem in not so difficult as many imagine. 
The greatest difficulty is, that we have been trained to use certain 
words as "God," "matter," "mind," "spirit," "soul," "intelli- 
gence," and we have been further trained to take these words as 
representatives of realities, whicli in fact, they do not represent. 
Y/(.' have to unlearn much of our school lore. We have specially 
to carefully examine the meaning of each word we use. I am told 
that the mind and the body are separate from one another. Are 
the brightness and steel of the knife separate? Is not brightness 
the quality attaching to a certain modification of existence — steel? 
Is not int-elligence a quality attaching to a certain modification of 
existence — man? The word Innghtness has no meaning, except as 
relating to some bright thing. The word intelligence, no meaning, 
except as relating to some intelligent thing. I take some water 
and drop it upon the steel, in duo course the process of oxidation 
takes place, and the brightness is gone. I drop into a man's brain 
a bullet ; the process of the destruction of life takes place, and his 
intelligence is gone. By changing the state of the steel we destroy 
its brightness, and by disorganizing the man destroy his intelli- 
gence. Is mind an entity or result? an existence or a condition ? 
Surely it is but the result of organic activity, a phenomenon of 
animal life. ( " Has Man a Soul ? " Charles Bradlaugh.) 

The idea of immortality, like the great sea, has ebbed and 
flowed in the human heart, beating its countless waves of hope 
and joy against the shores of time, and was not born of an book, 
nor of any religion, nor of any creed; it Avas born of human affwi- 
tion, and will continue to ebb and flow beneath the clouds and 
mists of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of 
death. It is the rainbow of hope shining upon the tears of grief. 
We love, therefore we wish to live, and the foundation of the idea 
of immortality is human affection and human love, and I have a 
thousand times more confidence in the affections of the human 
heart, in the deep and splendid feelings of the human soul than 1 
have in any book that ever was or ever can be written by mortal 

Is This Life the "Be-all and End-all P" 

To answer that question, or 1o give my views on the subject as 
to whether man lives after death or is extinguished as a living 


hcin^ by deatli, Avonld ordinarily involve a long preliminary dis- 
roursc; but I think I can give you my views, such as they arc, in 
a few -words. IJfo is sensation, sensibility, the power of feeling. 
Without sensation there is no life. We feel with our nerves,; we see 
with our eyes ; we hear Avith our ears. Without nerves there would 
bo no feeling, without eyes no seeing, without ears no hearing. 
These senses, therefore, of feeling, seeing, hearing, exist in combi- 
nation witli certain forms of matter, and cannot exist without such 
combination. So the mind exists in combination with the matter, 
brain. Without the brain there can be no mental phenomena, no 
thinking, no perceiving. These things are palpable ; they are trutlis 
which may not be disputed. Therefore, if death destroys our nerves, 
it destroys our power of feeling; if it destroys our eyes, it destroys 
our power of seeing ; if it destroys our ears, it destroys our power 
of hearing ; if it destroys our brain, it destroys our power of think- 
ing and perceiving. The man lies down, feeling nothing, seeing 
nothing, knowing nothing; he is a corpse. Separated from the 
brain, the mind cannot act, cannot think, cannot conceive ; there- 
fore, if it exists at all, it is the same as if it were dead. In that 
condition, the mind can no more think or perceive than the dust 
into which the decomposed nerves have fallen can feel. What fol- 
lows then? That the man has come to an end, entirely; ho is 
extinguished. — Selected. 

So you must equally bear with the comparatively small num- 
ber of scientists who, within the last three hundred years, have 
worked out the hypothesis that the soul is not matter, substance, 
-or entity, at all, but simply the continuous action or process of the 
nervous systems of animals, and especially of the brain of man, in 
answer to their environment. In a word, the life, soul, spirit, mind, 
thought, feeling, and "consciousness are but varying tones of the 
music which our nervous systems give out when the world plays 
upon them — much as the piano answers to the touch of our hands. 
The music was not in, nor the proj^orty of the piano, nor of the 
hand, but it arises and exists only by reason of the playing-contact 
of the two. Thus the life or soul is not Ji property of brain-matter, 
or of our nerves, nor of the world or it^j impinging force; but when 
those world forces by touch, heat, light, electricity and foods do 
reach so as to act upon the nerves and brain, then comes their re- 
action, and we call that reaction feeling, life, soul, thought, reason, 


etc., tlii-ougli all of tlio varying music of consciousness, whether 
exhibited by a child, a savage, a Newton or a Goethe. — Anon. 

Materialism— Prof. Tyndall. 

If Materialism is confounded, science is rendered dumb. . . . 
Materialism, therefore, is not a thing to bo mourned over, but to 
be honestly considered; accepted if wholly true, rejected if false. 
("Fragments of Science,"" p. 221.) It ought to be known and 
avowed that the physical philosopher, as such, must be a pure 
Materiahst. His inquiries deal with matter and force, and with 
them alone. (Tb., p. 72.) As regards knowledge, physical science 
is polar. (lb., p. 52.) It is the advance of [this] knowledge that 
has given a materialistic color to the philosophy of our age. (lb., 
p. 222.) We may fear and scorn Materialism; but he who knew 
all about it, and could apply his knowledge, might become the 
preacher of a new gospel. (lb., p. 221.) 

Through our neglect of the monitions of a reasonable Material- 
ism, we sin and suffer daily. (lb., p. 224.) The practical monitions 
are plain enough v/hich declare that on our dealings with matter 
depend our weal or woe, physical and moral. (lb., p. 222.) It is 
our duty not to shirk— it ought rather to be our privilege to accept, 
the established results of physical inquiries; for here, assuredly, 
our ultimate weal depends upon our loyalty to truth. Is mind 
degraded by this recognition of its dependence [on matter] ? As- 
suredly not. Matter, on the contrarj', is raised to the level it 
ought to occupy, and from which timid ignorance would remove it. 
(lb., p. 221.) 

Matter is not that empty capacity which philosophers and the- 
ologians have pictured it, but the universal mother, who brings 
forth all things as the fruit of her own womb. Nature is seen to 
do all things spontaneously, without the meddling of the gods. 
(Tb., p. 193.) Matter I define as that mysterious thing by which 
all that is, is accomplished. How it came to have the power which 
it possesses is a question on which I never ventured an opinion, 
(lb., p. 193.) I discern in matter the promise and potency of all 
terrestrial life. (lb., p. 251.) 

Does life belong to what we call matter, or is it an independent 
principle infused into matter at some suitable epoch? (lb., p. 131.) 
There does not exist a barrier, possessing the strength of acobweb, 
in opposition to the hypothesis whicli ascribes the appearance of 
life to that "potency of matt<.'r" which finds its expression in nat- 


Ural evolution. . . . Divorced from matter, where is life? (lb., 
p. 192.) To man, as we know him, matter is necessary to con- 
sciousness, (lb., p. 192.) Every meal we eat, and every cup wo 
drink, illustrates the mysterious control of mind by matter. (lb., 
p. 50.) 

If these statements startle, it is because matter has been de- 
fined and maligned by philosophers and theologians, who were 
ignorant alike of its mystical and transcendental powers. (lb., p. 
51.) Two courses, and two only, are possible: either let us open 
our doors freely to the conception of creative acts, or, abandoning 
them let us radically change our notions of matter. (lb., p. 191.) 
Without this total revolution of the notions now prevalent, the 
evolution hypothesis must stand condemned. (lb., p. 133.) 

If we look at matter as defined by our scientific text-books, 
the notion of conscious life coming out of it cannot be formed by 
the mind. (lb., p. 191.) Spirit and matter have ever been present 
to us in the rudest contrast ; the one as all noble, the other as all 
vile. But is this correct? Upon the answer to this question, all 
depends. (lb., p. 133.) 

Physiology proves Materialism to be true, and the fol- 
lowing testimony to that fact by eminent scientific men 
is only a small part of what might be quoted of similar 
tenor : 

Bain tells us : The most careful and studied observa- 
tions of physiologists have shown beyond question, that 
the brain as a whole is indispensible to thought, feeling, 
and volition. 

Dr. Ferrier says: The brain is the organ of mind, and 
that mental operations are possible only in and through 
it. This fact is so well established that we may start from 
it as we should from any ultimate fact. 

Prof. Virchow, of Berlin, says: Every one must admit 
that without a brain, nay, more, without a good and well 
developed brain, the human mind has no existence.— Man 
has a mind and rational will only in as much and in so far 
as he possesses a brain. 

Huxley says : What we call the operations of the mind 
ave functions of the brain, and the materials of consciousness 


are products of cerebral activity. Sensations are products 
of the inherent properties of the thinking organ. 

Tyndall says : We believe that every thought and every 
feehng has its definite mechanical correlative in the nervous 
system ; that it is accompanied by a certain separation and 
remarshalling of the atoms of the brain. 

Dr. Maudsley says : I do not go beyond what facts war- 
rant, when I say that, when a thought occurs in the mind, 
there necessarily occurs a correlative change in the gray 
matter of the brain. Without it, the thought could not 
arise ; with it, it can not fail to rise. 

What is matter 1 I take a handful of earth in my hands, and 
into that dust I put seeds, and arrows from the eternal quiver of 
the sun smite it, and the seeds grow and bud and blossom, and fill 
the air with perfume in my sight. Do you understand that? Do 
you understand how this dust and these seeds and that light and 
this moisture produced that bud and that flower and that per- 
fume? Do you understand that any better than you do the 
production of thought? Do you understand that any better than 
you do a dream ? Do you understand that any better than you 
do the thoughts of love that you see in the eyes of the one you 
adore? Canyon explain it? Canyon tell what matter is? Have 
you the shghtest conception? Yet you talk about matter as 
though you were acquainted with its origin ; as though you had 
compelled, with clenched hands, the very rocks to give up the secret 
of existence. Do you know what force is ? Can you account for mole- 
cular action? Are you familiar with chemistry? Can you account 
for the loves and hatreds of the atoms? Is there not something 
in matter that forever eludes you? Can you tell what matter 
really is? Before you cry Materialism, you had better find what 
matter is. Can you tell of anything without a material basis? 
Is it possible to imagine the annihilation of a single atom? Is 
it possible for you to conceive of the creation of a single atom? 
Can you have a thought that is not suggested to you by what 
you call matter? Did any man or woman or child ever have a 
Bohtary thought, dream or conception, that was not suggested to 
them by something they had seen in nature? — Ingersoll. 


The Origin of Belief in the Soul. 

* * * I had waited at some distance, and as tlie day grew 
stronger, saw that this nev/ grave was not the only one upon that 
lonely height. 

On my right was a mound on which lay the betel -box, the pipe, 
the haversack, and "dah" (or chopper-knife) that in life had been 
his who lay beneath. I turned to rest on the trunk of a fallen tree, 
when I heard the sound of footsteps. The childless man and woman 
were passing. I knew the man, and I spoke to him. lie had often 
been my guide in former visits to his village. Ho stopped. Ilis 
wife passed on. I asked, tenderly I hope, as to his child. What 
was the cause of death ? 

"Fever." Then he squatted down, drew out his pipe, filled 
and lit it. 

"Whose grave is that?" I asked, pointing to the mound with 
the betel-box and " dah." 

"One of the men of my village," he replied; "he died some 
months ago." 

" Why do you leave his betel-box, haversack, and ' dah ' on the 
grave ? What use can it be to him ? " 

" It is our custom." 

"But why?" 

"His 'lah' (spirit) will require them." 

"But you see his 'lah' has not taken them. They are still 
there, and they are rotting away." 

"Oh, no!" Yery promptly. "What you see are only tho 
forms of the things. Their 'lahs' have gone away and are with 
the man's *lah.'" 


"In another world below this." 

" And so people's *lahs' after death go to another world and 
work as in this?" 

"Yes; and if they had no haversack, and no betel-box, and no 
' dah ' how would they get on ? How could they cut down forest 
and cultivate rice for food if they had no * dah ' ? " 

He added after a pause : 

"So our people say, but I don't know. I am ignorant. I am 
only a poor jungle fowl." 

"But," I persisted, "how do your people know that it is true — 
that the betel-box, the haversack, the knife, and other things havo 
' lahs,' or even that the man has a ' lah ' ? " 


The Karen was silent for a while. Then he said — 

"My child is dead— his body is buried there. It can not move 
and go about ; j'^et I know that in my sleep he will come to me. 
He will speak, and I shall speak to him. It is not his body but 
his ' lah ' that will come. So also I lost an ax long ago. It fell in 
the forest somewhere. I could not find it, but in my sleep I have 
seen its ' lah ' and have held it in my hand." He paused, and went 
on: "It must have a 'lah,' for iron and handle have rotted away 
long ago, yet I held them last night in my hand." 

" Then the ' lah ' lives independently of the body ? " 

"Yes. Our people say so." 

I was silent. Here among these savages I saw how the germs 
of belief in a future life are laid, from what delusion they spring. 

Then looking back to the far-off times, when the ancestors 
of our own now civilized race were savages mth minds as unde- 
veloped as that of the savage before me, I saw how from the 
mystery of dream-appearances rose the belief in the dual nature of 
things. I saw how this belief, extending first to all things animate 
and inanimate, came in the slow evolution of man's intellect, by 
the elimination of the grosser and cruder portion of his thought 
to hold at length only of living things. 

No profound thought— no deep insight into human nature is 
needed to trace along general lines its further development. 

Man in his selfish egoism making himself the center of all nat- 
ure, has deemed that he alone is thus favored and raised above 
the rest of the universe. 

Moreover it is a belief that with all its uncertainties has an 
intrinsic attractive beauty in the hope it gives to man, that love 
and happiness will last beyond the grave. 

Above all— fatalest of all, it is a belief that offers to the craft 
of the priest, power over his fellow man. 

Thus, flattering to man's self-love, useful as an engine of power, 
affording an easy explanation of mysteries in life and death, this 
b(>licf in a soul really rising in "the mists and shadows of sleep," 
has come down to us as god-revealed from on high.— C. T. Bing- 
ham, in "Progress," London, England. 

" "WTien a Man Dies what Becomes of his Soul P " 

A friend of mine meeting me in the streets of Chicago 
one day, without much ceremony propounded the above 
question; "Say, Brother Bell," he began, "I would like to 


have you tell mo what becomes of a man's soul when he 
dies?" In reply 1 said, ''Do you see that man walking on 
the other side of the street? " "Yes," he said, "that is old 
Johnson." I then called his attention to the peculiar move- 
ment of the old gentleman. "See what a peculiar gait he 
has." He assented that our friend's gait was peculiar. As 
we were contemplating him, he stopped to look in a store 
window. When he halted I turned to my questioner and asked , 
" Where has Mr. Johnson's gait gone since he stopped walk- 
ing?" He very candidly acknowledged that a man's gait 
was not a thing, not an entity, but a mode of motion, and 
that when the body ceased to move, there was no gait. I 
asked him if thinking (the soul) Avas not amotion or activity 
of the brain, and that when it ceased to act, if there was 
any soul or thinking left. I have a very distinct remem- 
brance that he talked a long time and said nothing. 

Some Soul Questions. 

1. Where does the soul come from ? 

2. Is the soul an entity or nonentity ? 

3. Of what is the soul composed? 

4. When does the soul enter the body, before or after birth ? 

5. In what part of the body is the soul located? 

6. If the soul is located in all parts of the body what becomes 
of that part of the soul contained in an amputated part of a living 

7. Is the soul an organization independent of the body? 

8. Does the soul develop as the body develops? 

9. Is the soul of an infant of the same size and weight as the 
Boulof an adult? 

10. Is the soul of a negro of the same color as the soul of a 
Caucasian ? 

11. Is the soul of an idiot as well developed as the soul of an 
intelligent person? 

12. When does the soul leave the body, at death or at the 
resurrection day ? 

13. If the soul leaves the body at death, where does it sojourn 
while waiting for the resurrection morn ? 

14. If a living person was placed in an air-tight jar, and the jar 
sealed hermetically, at death how would the soul make its exit? 


15. After leaving the body what direction does the soul pur- 
Buo to reach its final destination? 

IG. What length of time does it require for the soul to reach 
its final destination ? 

17. Where and at what distance from the earth is the soul 
land located? 

18. Has the soul the physical organs indispensible to mental 
action and consciousness ? 

19. If not, of what use would the soul be? 

20. Is the soul sensible or insensible to pain? 

21. Of what shape is the soul ? 

22. Of what color is the soul ? 

23. Does tlio soul retain its sex? 

24. When and where are the souls made, or did they always 

25. We have five infallible witnesses to prove the existence 
of matter, namely, hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, and feeling. 
By these five witnesses we prove the existence and the component 
parts of matter, (^an you by the aid of these five senses prove the 
existence of souls? — W. C. Clow. 


Nothing could have come by chance, it is said, and there- 
fore it is inferred that this universe must have been created 
bv a God. 

Let us view this famous argument for a moment. God 
is something or nothing. To say he is nothing is to say 
There is no God. If he is something, he is not merely a 
property or quality, but an existence per se — an entity, a 
substance, whether material or immaterial is unimportant. 
If he is a substance, a material, or spiritual being, there 
must be order, harmony, and adaptation, or fitness, in his 
divine nature, to enable him to perceive, reflect, design, and 
execute his plans. If Deity does not reason, does not cogi- 
tate, but pen-eives truth without the labor of investigation 
and contrivance, he must still possess an adaptation or fit- 
ness thus to perceive, as well as to execute his design. 

To say God is without order, harmony, and adaptation, 
or fitness, is to say he is a mere chaos — worse than that 
imaginary chaos that theologians tell us would result if 
divine agency were withdrawn from the universe. If a being 
without order, harmony, and adaptation, or a divine chaos, 
can create an orderly universe then there is no consistency 
in saying that unintelligent matter could not have produced 
the objects that we behold. If order, harmony, and adapta- 
tion do exist in the divine mind (or in the substance which 
produces thought, power, and purpose in the divine mind) 
they must be eternal, for that which constitutes the essen- 


tial nature of a (iod must be the eternal basis of his beiuir. 
If the order, harmony, and adaptation in God are co-exist- 
ent with him, are eternal, they must be independent of design, 
for that which never began to exist could not have been pro- 
duced, and does not therefore admit of design. If order, 
harmony, and adaptation are independent of design in the 
divine mind, it is certain that order, harmony, and adapta- 
tion exist, and are not evidence of a pre-existent, designing 

If order, harmony, and adaptation exist, which were not 
produced by design, which are therefore no evidence of de- 
sign, it is unreasonable and illogical to infer designing 
intelligence from the fact alone that order, harmony, and 
adaptation exist in nature. Tlierefore an intelligent Deity 
cannot be inferred from the order, harmony, and adapta- 
tion in nature. If the order, harmony, and adaptation in 
Deity, to produce his thoughts, and to execute his plans, 
are eternal, why may not the formation of matter into 
worlds, and the evolutions of the various forms of vegeta- 
ble and animal life on this globe be the result of the ceaseless 
action of self-existent matter in accordance with an inherent 
eternal principle of adaptation? Is it more reasoua,ble to 
suppose the universe was created, or constructed by a being 
in whom exists the most wonderful order and harmony, and 
the most admirable adaptation to construct a universe 
(which order, harmony, and adaptation could have had no 
designing cause), than to suppose that the universe itseh 
in its entirety is eternal, and the self-producing cause of all 
the manifestations we behold? 

Is a God uncaused, and who made everything from noth- 
ing, more easy of belief than a universe uncaused and existing 
according to its own inherent nature? Is it wonderful that 
matter should be self-existent; tliab it should possess the 
power to form suns, planets, and construct that beautiful 
ladder of life that reaches from the lowest forms of the vege- 
table kingdom up to man? How much more wonderful that 
a great being should exist, without any cause, who had no 


beginning-, and who is infinitely more admirable than the 
universe itself. 

Again, the plan of a work is as much evidence of intelli- 
gence and design as the work which embodies the plan. The 
plan of a steam engine in the mind of Fitch — the plan of the 
locomotive in the mind of Stephenson— was as much evidence 
of design as the piece of machinery after its mechanical con- 
struction. If God be an omniscient being — a being who knows 
everything; to whose knowledge no addition can be made— 
his plans must be eternal — without beginning, and therefore 
uncaused. If God's plans are not eternal; if from time to 
time new plans originate in his mind, there must be an 
addition to his knowledge, and if his knowledge admits of 
addition, it must be finite. But if his plans had no begin- 
ning; if, like himself, they are eternal, they must, like him, 
be independent of design. Now, the plan of a thing, we have 
already seen, is as much evidence of design as the object 
which embodies the plan. Since the plans of Deity are no 
proof of design that produced them (for they are supposed 
to be eternal), the plan of this universe, of course, was no 
evidence of a designing intelligence that produced it. But 
since the plan of the universe is as much evidence of design 
as the universe itself, and since the former is no evidence of 
design, it follows that design cannot be inferred from the 
existence of the universe. 

The absurdity of the a posteriori argument of a God 
consists in the assumption that what we call order and 
adaptation in nature are evidence of design, vv^hen it is 
evident that whether there be a God or not, order and 
adaptation must have existed from eternity, and are not 
therefore necessarily proof of a designing cause. The 
reasoning of the theologian is like that of the Hindoo in 
accounting for the position of the earth. " Whatever exists 
must have some support," said he. The earth exists, and 
is therefore supported . He imagined it resting on the back 
of an elephant. The elephant neediag some support, he sup- 



posed rested on the back of a huge tortoise. He forgot 
that according to his own premise that whatever exists 
must have some support, that the tortoise should rest on 
something. The inconclusiveness of his reasoning is appar- 
ent to a child. Whatever exists is supported. The earth 
<?xists. Therefore, the earth is supported; it rests on an 
elephant; the elephant rests on a tortoise; the tortoise 
exists, but nothing is said about its support. 

The theologian says order, harmony, and adaptation 
are evidence of a designing intelligence that produced them. 
The earth and its productions show order, harmony, and 
adaptation. Therefore, the earth and its productions have 
been produced by an intelhgent designer. Just as the Hin- 
doo stopped reasoning when he imagined the earth on an 
elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, so the theologian 
stops reasoning when he says, God made the world. But as 
surely as from the premise that whatever exists must have 
some support, follows the conclusion that the tortoise rests 
on something, as rests on it the elephant, does it follow from 
the proposition that order, harmony, and adaptation are 
proof of an intelligent designer, that the order, harmony, 
and adaptation in the Deity to produce the effects ascribed 
to him are evidence of an intelligent designer who made him, 
as the various parts of nature, adapted to one another, are 
evidence of an intelligent designer that produced them. This 
reasoning leads to the conclusion that there has been an 
infinite succession of creative and created Gods, which is 
inconsistent with the idea of a First Cause, the creator of ' 
the universe. Then why attempt to explain the mysteries 
of the universe by imagining a God who produced every- 
thing but himself, and why argue from the order and fitness 
in the world the existence of a designer. It reminds me of 
the ostrich, that having buried its head in the sand, so as 
to render invisible its pursuers, fancies there is no further 
ueed of exertion to escape from the dangers and difficulties 
which surround it. 


"Design represented as a search after final cause, until wo come 
fco a first cause, and then stop," says F. N. Newman, "is an argu- 
ment I confess which in itself brings me no satisfaction." "The 
attempt," says Buckle, "which Paley and others have made to 
solve this mystery by rising from the laws to the cause are 
evidently futile, because to the eye of reason the solution is as 
incomprehensible as the problem, and the arguments of the nat- 
ural theologian, in so far as they are arguments, must depend on 

Design implies the use of means for the attainment of 
ends. Man designs, plans, contrives and nses secondary 
agencies to accomplish his purposes, because unable to 
attain liis ends directly. But how absurd to speak of 
contrivance and design in a being of infinite power and 
knowledge. Man, to build steamships has to fell trees and 
hew them into various shapes, get iron from the earth 
and smelt it in furnaces, and work it into bolts, braces, 
nails, etc., hundreds of workmen, carpenters, joiners, black- 
smiths, cabinet-makers, painters, caulkers, riggers, etc., 
labor for months before the vessel can be launched. If man 
possessed the power to speak into existence a steamship, 
would he contrive, glan and use means to construct it? On 
the contrary, would it not come instantly into existence as 
a complete, perfect whole ? 

But the existence of a steamer, since it is only a means 
to an end, would be inconsistent with unlimited power in 
man. If he were able to effect his purposes why should he 
construct a vessel with which to visit far off lands ? Infinite 
power would enable him to cross the ocean by the mere exer- 
cise of his will. It is evident at a glance that the use of 
means is incompatible with infinite knowledge and infinite 
power. This arg-ument ... in proving too much proves 
nothing, and demonstrates its own worthlessness,and there- 
fore we cast it aside. Design implies finiteness ; man designs 
and has to calculate and use means to accomplish his end. 
If he were all powerful would he use that power to construct 
ships to cross the ocean, or armies to win battles, when he 
could accomplish his end without, and by those means de- 


mon.struto that he i« infinite in power? An infinite being 
would not have to employ means to complete his works; 
he would not have to doubt and cogitate before he accom- 
plished his design; that would be the method of man. It is 
absurd to suppose that a God did all those things. We sup- 
posed God infinite in everything, in his power, in his love 
and kindness. He has power to do everything. And yet 
the world is so constructed that at every step we take we 
crush to death creatures as minutely and curiously formed 
as ourselves. They kill one another in numerous struggles, 
and life has been such a series of bloody battles, resulting in 
des'truction of life, that the Waterloos and Solferinos of his- 
tory are nothing in comparison. Where is the design in the 
volcano that belches forth its fiery billows and buries in 
ruins a Pompeii and a Herculaneum? Where is the design 
in the tornado that sends a fleet with its precious freight of 
humanity beneath the remorseless waves ? Where is the de- 
sign in the suffering and torture that thousands feel this very 
moment in the chambers of sickness, and in the hospitals 
full of diseases ? Wliere is the evidence of a great being who 
has the power to make men happy, and yet allows the world 
to go on in all its misery— such misery as it makes one's 
heart ache to see, and which we, imperfect creatures as we 
are, would gladly stop if we could ? 

And where is the design in the thousands of fa<rfcR which 
science has brought to light, showing that there are organs 
and parts that serve no purpose at all, but on the contrary, 
are injurious to their possessors? Why do some animals, 
like the dugong, have tusks that never cut through the 
gums? Why has the guinea pig teeth that are shed before 
it is born? Science tells us these rudimentary structures 
are the remnants of a former state, in which these parts 
were of service; but theology, which requires us to believe 
that a God made all these animals as we now see them, can- 
not possibly reconcile these facts with infinite wisdom and 


Adaptation in organisms instead o! having been pro- 
duced by a Deity, we hold is largely the result of natural 
selection. Adaptation must exist as the adjustment of ob- 
jects to their environments. If a flock of sheep be exposed 
to the weather of a severe climate, those of them having the 
thinnest wool, affording the least protection from the cold, 
will perish. Those with the thickest wool and hardiest 
nature will survive every year, and by the law of heredity, 
transmit their favorable variations. By this process those 
best adapted to the climate live, and the others perish. 
Thus in the struggle for life we have the "survival of the 
fittest," without any design whatever. But the theologian 
comes along and looking at the sheep, says : " See how God 
has adapted these sheep to the climate." He forgets the 
thousands that have shivered and perished in winter's cola 
as the condition of this adaptation. So animals change the 
color of their coverings in accordance with their environ- 
ments. The bears among the icebergs of the North are 
white, because in the struggle for life every light variation 
has been favorable to the animal — has facilitated its escape 
from the hunter and its preying upon the living things upon 
which it subsists. Those with darker coverings have gradu- 
ally become extinct, leaving in undisputed possession of the 
snow banks and icebergs this species, which in color resem- 
bles the general aspect of its surroundings. Look at the 
rabbits. Some change their color every year; some are 
brown in the summer and white like the snow in winter. 
Those with this tendency to change their color during the 
year, having the most favorable variation, have persisted, 
and this tendency, by heredit^^, has been accumulated, until 
it has become a part of the nature of the animal. 

These are but illustrations of a principle discovered by 
Darwin and Wallace, which explains largely how, not only 
color and thickness of coverings, but speed, strength and 
suppleness of body, keenness of sight and hearing, and all 
other parts and powers of organism have been developed in 


adaptation to their environment, without any special design 

It is said we have no evidence of the eternal existence of 
the universe, because we have no personal observation of it. 
But is there any personal observation to prove the existence 
of an eternal God? Yet it is believed in by our opponents. 
We believe the universe always has existed in the past, be- 
cause we see no trace of a beginning; we believe it will always 
exist in the future, because we see no prospect or possibility 
of an end. 'Worlds have their formation and dissolution; 
but the substance is neither augmented nor diminished. 
Matter is indestructible and eternal. We are not, therefore, 
in need of a creator. B. F. Underwood. 

Do the natural affairs of this world snow a designer? 
Is there a conscious intelligence at work guiding all the 
affairs of this world ! We see no evidence of a wise and be- 
nevolent design in the creation of wild, ravenous birds and 
beasts of prey. We fail to see anything like a kind provi- 
dence in earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, tidal-waves, storms 
at sea, drouth, famine, and pestilence. Is there a supremo 
intelligence which causes monstrosities, sends epidemics, hor- 
rid diseases, plants parasites upon the human body? Are 
lice, tape-worms, bed-bugs, fleas, flies, grasshoppers, and 
mosquitoes "blessings in disguise?" Are abject poverty 
and misery divine blessings? Is ignorance a gracious boon 
in mercy sent? Pain and misery are not exceptional feat- 
ures of man's life on earth, but they are chief characteristics 
of it. Are some unconscious of their degradation ? Shall wo 
infer therefrom that ignorance is bliss? If this unconscious- 
ness of degradation on the part of some shall be considered 
as evidence of a benevolent designer, then what shall we say 
in the case of those who are conscious of their degradation ? 

"If," says Haeckel, "we contemplate the common life 
and mutual relations between plants and animals (man 
included) we shall find everywhere and at all times, the very 

1>R0VIDENCE. 247 

opposite of that kindly and peaceful social life which the 
r:oodness of the creator ought to have prepared for his 
creatures : we shall rather find everywhere a pitiless, most 
embittered struggle of all against all." Large fish eat small 
ones, large birds devour the smaller, and the ferocious beasts 
of prey live upon the weaker and less fleet animals. In this 
struggle for existence there is one perpetual battle; the 
smaller, weaker and less fleet are captured and devoured by 
the stronger, and man destroys and eats any of them at his 

Is there a display of intelligence and benevolent design 
in creating man with strength and wisdom to slaughter his 
prey at will? Then where is the benevolence of design in 
creating the animals to be thus slaughtered ? 

The universe, we shall find, does not exhibit evidence of 
a conscious intelligent design. Says Shelley: "We must 
prove design before we can infer a designer." 

Mr. Talmage insists that it takes no especial brain to reason 
out a "design" in nature, and in a moment afterward says : " When 
the world slew Jesus, it showed what it would do mth the eternal 
God if once it could get its hands upon him." Why should a God 
of infinite wisdom create people who would gladly murder their 
creator? Was there any particular "design" in that? Does the 
existence of such people conclusively prove the existence of a good 
designer? ( "Ingersoll's Interviews," p. 4G.) 


Religious people see Providence in everything. Strange 
it is, too, that the most marked displays of Providence are 
seen in shipwrecks, railroad collisions, or in all devastating- 
fires, floods, and plagues. In such appalling calamities as 
lead most sensible men to say with iEneas, "If there be 
gods, they certainly take no interest in the affairs of men," 
the Christian sees proof of a good guardian, a saving God, 
where nothing but destruction and ruin mark his pathway. 
There is a strange fatuity manifested by believers in this 
doctrine. Not long since a young man died very suddenly 
in Boston. There was a post-mortem examination by regu- 


lar physicians, and a coroner's jury, who mutually deliberated 
over the body as to the cause of its death. The doctors 
found the young man's stomach somewhat irritated. On 
close inspection the contents of the stomach were found to 
be a mixture of bread and butter, mince pie and coffee, ham 
and eggs, buckwheat cakes, oyster stevv', plum pudding, 
pound cake, corned beef, ice cream, more mince pie, and 
baked beans. 

The jury gave the case most gi'ave and deliberate con- 
sideration, and in accordance therewith returned the verdict: 
"Came to his death by a mysterious dispensation of the 
afflictive hand of Providence." Just so! Anything, how- 
ever evil,imjust or foolish may be attributed to Providence; 
yet he remains both wise and good. 

Why, if this world is created and controlled by infinite 
wisdom and benevolence, are not all things beautiful? One 
of man's noblest endeavors is to beautify. But we see many 
flowers and i)lants which are not beautiful. 

Many parts of the earth are inhospitable and forbidding. 
What beauties on the other hand lie buried at the bottom 
of the ocean, its flora, shells, and corals! But no human 
eye ever sees them. Wherein is the evidence of design? 
Where is the evidence of design in the horrid monsters which 
once filled the oceans? Where is the design in creating such 
monstrosities as we see among animals? 

Did the designer intend that parasites should infest the 
human body? The creator made the parasites (lice) and 
their proper dwelling-place seems to be the human body. 
The human body gives them their proper food. They are 
so constituted as to reproduce themselves rapidly and thus 
persist in feeding upon man. 

The question is immediately raised : " Werethelice made 
for man, or man for the li(;c? " When did it ever occur to a 
sane mind that bed-bugs and mosquitoes aiid fleas were 
created with a benevolent design ? 

These facts are irreconcileable with the notion of a su- 
preme and beneficent Providfuco. 


AM]ore is the evidence of benevolent design in earth- 
quakes, floods, volcanoes, drouth, famine, and ten thousand 
ills which flesh is heir to? Where is the moral purpose? 
Where is the benevolence in peopling the earth with millions 
of human beings who live lives of poverty and misery? 

But it is argued that we cannot see it all now, but by 
and by it will be made plain to us, that is, when we get into 
the other world. This is begging the question. The Chris- 
tian says creation shows a creator, who first created the 
universe and now presides over it. But when we bring the 
facts of this world, its abounding evils and human miseries, 
to show the absence of any benevolent superintendence, he 
promises to make good his argument in the next world. 
This is asking a fellow to wait too long. Again, it is argued 
by the Christian that God ordained pain to work out good ; 
but hov/ comes it that this ordination of working good out 
of evil does not take place? Sometimes one man is made 
better by it, and another is brutalized by it. How does this 
come to pass if pain was ordained to work good? Has the 
j)lan of the designer failed? "The evils of this world are 
ordained for the purpose of developing our souls; only by 
pain and suffering can we be prepared for heaven." Little 
children who die, according to this dogma, can never be 

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them 
shall not fall to the ground "^nthout your Father? (Mat. 10 : 29.) 

But sparrows do fall to the ground nevertheless. And 
if some do not fall to the ground that wicked bird the spar- 
row-hawk, devours them sometimes before they have an 
opportunity to fall. It is the same wise and kind Provi- 
dence who makes the sparrow and the sparrow-hawk, but 
[)erhaps the poor sparrow does not recognize the wisdom 
and mercy of having a destroyer. But our good Christian 
friends will have it that all things come to pass by the direct 
control of an all-wise and all-good Providence. The Chicago 
fire, the Boston fire, and others are all dispensations of 
Providence, if we may believe the ministers, and they are 


the only ones who pretend to have positive information of 
the facts. The bursting of a mill-dam, or a tidal-wave, or 
anything and everything else that carries the besom of de- 
struction to thousands is to them a well-known intervention 
of the hand of a wise and merciful Providence. It is the same, 
with good fortune ; if we as a people have ^reat prosperity, 
large harvests and abundance of trade, it is because of this 
"All-wise Providence." He brings the evil and the good, 
miseries and joys, sins and salvation. 

How do we know there is a kind Providence watching 
over this world ? " Oh ! " says our Christian friend, '' we see 
this manifested in the kindly adaptations of nature to man's 
conditions, everything seems to have been made for man's 
comfort." But, this general adaptation of man to nature 
and of nature to man, proves nothing of a conscious intelli- 
gence ruling over the universe. The maggot in the cheese 
might look around him and say, if he could talk: "All this 
cheese was made for me, because it's perfectly adapted to 
my wants and conditions." Man and maggot are adapt-ed 
to their surroundings, because their surroundings have made 
them what they are. 

After attempting to prove the existence of a special Prov- 
idence, and failing, the Christian then craw-fishes into absurd 
talk of a mysteriousVroYldence, Si dark dispensation of Prov- 
idence, an inscrutible Providence, an inexplicableFTOYidenco. 
And when driven from this refuge, he at last exclaims : " Well, 
if it all seems dark and hidden from our understanding here, 
it will all be made clear when we pass over to the other 
side." Yes, but 3'ou admit by this statement that you know 
now positively nothing of a conscious intelligence ruling tlie 
universe, why not say so? 

The fundamental idea of a special Providence, is that he 
ytrevents accidents ; but in spite of special Providence, acci- 
dents do occur. And even these mishaps, which show that 
no such thing as Providence exists, are claimed by the super- 
stitious as proof of a mysterious Providence. 


Francis Bacon says : We shall do well to bear in mind the an- 
cient story of one who in Pagan times was shown a temple with a 
picture of all the persons who nad been saved from shipAvreck, after 
paying their vows. When asked whether he did acknowledge 
the power of the gods, "Aye," he answered, "but where are they 
painted who were drowned after their vows?" (Jevon's "Princi- 
ples of Science," part 2, p. 5.) 

We learn from the little care which nature takes of single 
individuals. Thousands of them are sacrificed without hesitation 
or repentance in the plenty of nature. Even with regard to man 
wc make the same experience. Not one half of the human race 
reach the second year of their age, but die almost without having 
known that they ever lived. We learn this very thing also from 
the misfortunes and mishaps of all men, the good as well as the 
bad, which cannot well be made to agree with the special preserva-- 
tion or co-operation of the creator. (Feuerbach's "Essence of 
Religion." ) 

But with the conception of a supreme beneficience this gratui- 
tous infliction of misery, in common with other terrestrial creatures 
capable of feeling, is also absolutely incompatible. — Spencer. 

In short, there can be no hypothesis of a "moral government" 
of the world which does not implicitly assert an "immoral govern- 
ment." (Fisk's "Cosmic Philosophy," vol. 2, p. 407.) 

But the believer in the inspiration of the Bible is compelled to 
declare that there was a time when slavery was right — when men 
could buy, and women could sell, their babes. He is compelled to 
insist that there was a time when Polygamy was the highest form 
of virtue ; when wars of extermination were waged with the sword 
of mercy ; when religious toleration was a crime, and when death 
was the just penalty for having expressed an honest thought. He 
must maintain that Jehovah is just as bad now as he was four 
thousand years ago, or that he was just as good then as he is 
now, but that human conditions have so changed that slavery, 
polygamy, religious persecutions, and wars of conquest are now 
perfectly devilish. Once they were right — once they were com- 
manded by God himself; now, they are prohibited. There has 
been such a change in the conditions of man that, at the present 
time, the Devil is in favor of slavery, polygamy, religious persecu- 
tion, and wars of conquest. That is to say, the Devil entertains 
the same opinion to-day that Jehovah held four thousand years 


ago, but in the meantime Jehovah has remainod exactly the same 
— changeless and incapable of change. ... A very curious thing 
about those commandments is that their supposed author vio- 
lated nearly every one. From Sinai, according to the account, ho 
said : "Thou shalt not Idll," and yet he ordered the murder of mill- 
ions; "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and yet hegave captured 
maidens to gratify the lust of captors; "Thou shalt not steal," 
and yet he gave to Jewish marauders the flocks and herds of 
others ; " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife," 
and yet he allowed his chosen people to destroy the homes of neigh- 
bors and to steal their wives; "Honor thy father and thy mother," 
and yet this same God had thousands of fathers butchered, and 
with the sword of war killed children yet unborn ; " Thou shalt not 
bear false witness against thy neighbor," and yet he sent abroad 
"lying spirits" to deceive his own prophets, and inahundrod ways 
paid tribute to deceit. So far as we know, Jehovah kept only one 
of these commandments— he worshipped no other God. ("Inger- 
soll's Reply to Black." ) 

It is said of Christ that he was infinitely kind and generous, 
infinitely merciful because when on earth he cured the sick, the 
lame, and iho blind. Has he not as much power now as ho had then? 
If he has and is the God of all worlds, why does he not now give 
back to the widow her son? Why does he withhold hght from the 
blind, and why does one who had the power miraculously to feed 
thousands allow millions to die for want of food? Where is lie 
now? ( "Ingersoll's Interviews." ) 

First Cause. 

Assuming then, the existence of a First Cause, let us in- 
(juire for a moment into its nature. The First Cause must 
be infinite. For if we regard it as finite, we regard it as 
bounded or limited, and are thus compelled to think of a 
i(.'gion beyond its limits, which region is uncaused. And if 
we admit this, we virtually abandon the doctrine of causa- 
tion altogether. We, therefore, have no alternative but to 
regard the First Cause as infinite. 

We are no less irresistibly compelled to regard the First 
Cause as independent. For if it be dependent, that on which 
it depends must be the First Cause. The First Cause can 
therefore have no necessary relation to any other form of 

fTrst cause. 2r)r5 

being; since if the presence of any other form of existence is 
necessary to its completeness, it is partially dependent upon 
such other form of existence, and cannot be the First Cause. 
Thus the First Cause, besides being infinite, must be com- 
plete in itself, existing independently of all relations, — that 
is, it must be absolute. 

To such conclusions, following the most refined meta- 
physical philosophy of the day, are we easily led. By the 
very limitations of our faculties, we are compelled to think 
of a First Cause of all phenomena; and we are compelled to 
think of it as both infinite and absolute. 

Nevertheless, it will not be difficult to show that such a 
conclusion is utterly illusive ; and that in joining together, 
the three conceptions of Cause, of Infinite, and of Absolute, 
we have woven for ourselves a net-work of contradictions, 
more formidable, more disheartening than any that we have 
yet been required to contemplate. For, in the first place, 
that which is a cause cannot at the same time be absolute- 
For the definition of the Absolute is that which exists out of 
all relations ; whereas a cause not only sustains some defi- 
nite relation to its effect, but it exists as a cause only by 
virtue of such relation. Suppress the effect, and the causehas 
ceased to be a cause. The phrase "absolute cause," there- 
fore, which is equivalent to "non-relative cause," is like the 
phrase "circular triangle." The two words stand for con- 
ceptions which cannot be made to unite. "Wo attempt," 
says Mr. Mansel, "to escape from this apparent contradic- 
tion by introducing the idea of succession in time. The 
Absolute exists first by itself, and afterwards becomes a 
cause. But here, we are checkmated by the third concep- 
tion, that of the Infinite. How can the Infinite become that 
which it W'as not from the first? If causation is a possible 
mode of existence, that which exists without causing is not 
infinite; that which becomes a cause has passed beyond its 
former limits. 

"But supposing all these obstacles overcome, so that we 
might frame a valid conception of a cause which is also 


absolute and infinite : have we then explained the origin of 
the universe? Have we advanced one step toward explain- 
ing how the Absolute can be the source of the Relative, or 
how the Infinite can give rise to the Finite?" To continue 
with Mr. Mansel, "if the condition of causual activity is a 
higher state than that of quiesence, the Absolute . . . 
has passed from a condition of comparative imperfection to 
one of comparative perfection; and therefore was not orig- 
inally perfect. If the state of activity is an inferior state to 
that of quiesence, the Absolute in becoming a cause has lost 
its original perfection. There remains only the supposition 
that the two states are equal, and the act of creation 
one of complete indifference. But this supposition annihi- 
lates the unity of the Absolute." (John Fiske, ''Cosmic 
Philosophy." ) 


It is related that once upon a time, a number of grave 
and reverend rabbins earnestly disputed among themselves, 
whether it was lawful or not to eat an egg that was laid 
upon the Sabbath day. In the minds of some of these grave 
and wise masters it was held to be a prohibited egg, but in 
the stomachs of others of their number such eggs were held 
as too good to be despised. 

In the Blue Laws of Connecticut by Rev. Sam Peters, we 
have Puritan scruples put in rhyme: 

"Upon the Sabbath day they'll no physick take, 
Lest it should worke, and so the Sabbath breake." 

There have always been great disputes over this subject 
which we call in general terms the "Sunday Question." 
Why do so many misunderstandings arise upon this mat- 
ter? Simply because people do not understand the question. 
Millions of devout v\^orshippers use the terms Sunday and 
Sabbath as if they were synonymous. Millions of supersti- 
tious persons cherish obligations to maintain better conduct 
on Sunday than on any other day in the week. They cannot 
understand that it is fit and proper to do on Sunday any- 
thing that it is fit and proper to do on any other day. The 
tendency to perform the duties of life correctly on Sunday 
leaves room and disposition not to perform them so well on 
the other six days of the week. Such people live cream lives 
on Sunday and skim-milk lives all the rest of the week. It 


won't do ; because it tends to demoralize rather than estab- 
lish the noble sentiments of morality and manhood. If we 
would know how to observe Sunday we must know some- 
thing more about it than we have unconsciously learned 
from the nursery stories of our childhood. Let us begin 
with the names of 

The Days of the "Week. 

We trace these names to our Saxon ancestors. By them the 
seven days of the week were called Son-daeg, Moon-daeg, Tuis- 
daeg, Woden's-daeg, Thurres-daeg or Thor's-day, Friga's-daeg, 
and Seterne's-daeg. These were the names of ancient deities. As 
seven planets and seven metals were at that time known — ^the sun, 
the moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn being the 
planets of astrologj^ — a due allotment was made, gold was held 
sacrod to the sun, silver to the moon, iron to Mars, etc. Even the 
portions of time were in alike manner dedicated; the seven days 
of the week were respectively given to the seven planets of astrol- 
ogy. The names imposed on these days, and the order in 
whicli they occur, are obviously connected with the Ptolemaic 
hypothesis of astronomy, each of the planets having an hour as 
signed to it in its order of occurrence, and the planet ruling first 
the liour of each day giving its name to that day. Thus arranged, 
the week is a remarkable instance of the longevity of an institu- 
tion adapted to the wants of man. It has survived througli many 
changes of empire and has forced itself on the ecclesiastical system 
of Europe, which, unable to change its idolatrous aspect, lias 
encouraged the vulgar error that it owes its authenticity to the 
holy scriptures; an error too plainly betrayed by the Pagan 
names that the days bear, and also by their order of occurrence. 
("Intellectual Development of Europe," by John W. Draper, vol. 
1, p. 403.) 

It is remarkable that every day of the week is by differ- 
ent nations devoted to the public celebration of religious 
services :— Sunday b^^ the Christians, Monday by the (Jreeks, 
Tuesday by the Persians, Wednesday by the Assyrians, 
Thursday by the Egyptians, Friday by the Turks, Saturday 
by the Jews. 

From a passage in (ionoHis, iii which the first reference to a 
Sabbatli occurs, the inference has been drawn (an inference not 


warrautod by the text) that the first parents of the human race 
wore tanght by God liimself to divide time into weeks, and to set 
apart a portion as a day of rest, and for religious purposes. If so, 
it would of course follow that this institution, or some traces of it, 
would be found among all nations; and the impression, therefore, 
on the mind of a very large class of persons, is a very natural one, 
that however much a Sabbath may have fallen into disuse, or be 
now disregarded, the week of seven days has been kept by all gen- 
erations of mankind from the days of creation, and continues to 
be observed in every part of the world. ( "Westminster Eevicw," 
October 1850, p. 134.) 

It is, however, true that observance of one day in sovon 
as a day of rest, recreation, and pleasure obtains in many 
countries. How then did it come about if it was not revealed 
to man, that we keep in a special manner 

One Day in Seven ? 

The observance of a seventh part of the week is no more 
a revelation than the multiplication table is. It was nat- 
ural for man to measure the spaces of time. The revolution 
of the earth, or from sun to sun was a day, and from new 
moon to new moon was a month of twenty-eight days. It 
was a most natural thing to have feasts at the full of the 
moon and at new moon; between these times were the 
••horned moon," and this marked another division of time. 
It was easy to divide the full moon into four periods, each 
of seven days. Hence originated the observance of one day 
in seven. After the moon time had been divided into four 
parts each of seven days and the days specifically named, 
then the old phraseology of "new moon days" was dropped 
as it was no longer needed. 

There are two different reasons given for observing the 
Sabbath : 

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and 
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord 
blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exodus 20 : 11.) 

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, 
and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a 
'aiglity hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy 


God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. (Deuteronomy 
5: 15.) 

Here are two distinct and contradictory accounts given 
of the origin of the Sabbath. According to the first, God 
instituted the Sabbath on the seventh day of time, immedi- 
ately after his six days of creation. But if we are to beheve 
the writer of Deuteronomy the Sabbath was set up as a 
memorial day of the Jews' escape from Egyptian bondage ; 
an occurrence that took place something like two thousand 
five hundred years after the year one, of creation. Both of 
these statements cannot be correct, as one excludes the 
other. And in view of the fact that man naturally learned 
to divide time into days, moons, and quarter moons we are 
strongly inclined to think that both of these ancient ac- 
counts are mythical. 

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." 

The word holy has lost its original signification. The 
Hebrew word kadosh means ''to set apart." Parkhurst 
renders it, "to separate, to set apart from its common and 
ordinary to some higher use or purpose." It is used in this 
sense in Genesis 4: "And God divided [i.e. separated] the 
light from the darkness." 

The vessels of the sanctuary were to be " Holy unto the 
Lord ; " that is, they were to be kept strictly separate from 
other vessels, for the sanctuary. 

The saba or Sabbath was a da,y of 7*e6'^, and the command 
to keep it holy did not mean that it should be observed with 
solemnity, or kept by offering sacrifices or in the perform- 
ance of other religious ceremonies. Other days were working 
daj-'s, but the Sabbath was to be a day of rest. 

"The word hoJy,^' says a modern writer on the Sabbath, 
"has now become so associated in our minds with Puritan- 
ical ideas of self-mortification and with modern religious 
forms of worship, that we are naturally misled by it from 
the meaning of the original. Many jjious jx^rsons suppose 
that the command to keep the Sabbath day holy was equiv- 
alent to an injunction to attend a parish church, hear two 


or more sermons in the course of the Sunday and during the 
rest of the day to keep in-doors and read the Bible. The 
Jews, however, did not do this, for the Bible was not written, 
and sermons in its exposition (which would have wanted 
texts) could not well be preached. Nor does it appear from 
any passage in the books of Moses, that religious admonitions 
or discourses of any kind^ formed a part of the tabernacle 

The Jewish Sabbath was emphatically a day of rest. 
Work, therefore, was strictly prohibited; for "Whosoever 
dooth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put 
to death." (Exodus 31 : 15.) 

This law was not so literal as subsequent interpreters 
have made it. We have an account of only one person being 
put to death for this crime. It is recorded in Numbers, 15 : 
32— 3G that "while the children of Israel were in the wilder- 
ness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath 

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto 
Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 

And they put him in ward, because it was not declared 
wfiat should be done to him. 

And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put 
to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without 
the camp. 

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, 
and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded 

This was the only case in all the Hebrew writings, of 
stoning a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But 
this single instance has engendered an infinite amount of 
bitter persecution in the hearts of the over-righteous, who 
keep the Sabbath holy and try also to make their neighbors 
observe it in a like manner. 

Sir Humphrey Davy relates in his " Salmonia," page 
1,345, that he "was walking on Arthur's Seat with some of 
the most distinguished professors of Edinburgh attached to 
the geological opinions of the late Dr. Hutton, a discussion 


took place upon the phenomena presented by the rocks 
under our feet, and to exemplify a principle, Professor Play- 
fair broke some stones, in which I assisted the venerable and 
amiable philosopher. 

"We had hardly examined the fragments, when a man 
from the crowd, who had been assisting at field-preaching, 
en me up and warned us off, saying, ' Ye think ye are only 
stane-breakers ; but I ken ye are Sabbath breakers, and yo 
deserve to be staned with your ain stanes.' " 

Accidents which take place on Sunday are looked upon 
by some people as " Judgments of God." 

In Scotland on January 16th, 1603 the citizens were dreadfully 
alarmed by an earthquake, on account of which a day of fasting' 
and humihation was appointed by the magistrates and clergy. 
The particular sin for which this scourge was thought to be sent, 
was the custom of salmon-fishing on Sunday. 

But this rigid feature of the Jevvish Sabbath was of a negative 
character, as the day was observed as a day of feasting and joy — a 
day something like our Thanksgiving. 

A variety of minor regulations referring to bodily indulgences 
on that day, abundantly prove, if further proof Avere needed, its 
recognized character as a "feast-day" in the natural and general 
sense of the term, in Judaism. It was to be honored by the wear- 
ing of finer garments, by three special meals of the best cheer the 
house could afford ; and it was considered a particularly merito- 
rious thing on the part of the master of the house to busy himself 
personally as much as possible with the furnishing of the viands, 
nay, the fetching of the very wood for the cooking, so as to do as 
much honor to the "bride-sabbath" as in him lay. 

Fasting, mourning, mortification of all and every kind, even 
special suppUcatory prayers are strictly prohibited. (Chamber's 

If Sunday takes the place of the Sabbath, then the New 
Testament would clearly reveal the fact; but it does noth- 
ing of the kind. If the new religion was designed to take the 
place of the old, then we should expect to find Jesus plainly 
teaching that after his death Sunday should be obsei-ved in 
place of and as the Sabbath. P.ut far from this, we find liim 



repudiating the Jewish Sabbath, and saying nothing at all 
about a new day of ceremonies and worship. 

We give a number of instances where Jesus intentionally 
repudiates and violates the common usages respecting the 
Sabbath : 

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when 
t he water is troubled to put me into the pool ; but while I am com- 
ing, another steppeth down before me. 

Jesus saith unto him, Eise, take up thy bed, and walk. 

And immediately the man was made whole, and took up hiw 
bed and walked: and ^n the same day was the Sabbath. 

The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the 
Sabbath day : it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 

And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to 
slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day. 
(John 5 : 7, 8, 9, 10 and 16.) 

The Jewish law regarding the Sabbath was strict. It 
was not lawful to carry burdens on that day. 

Thus saith the Lord, Take heed to yourselves, and bear no bur- 
den on the Sabbath day; nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. 
(Jeremiah 17: 21.) 

And it cafne to pass that he went through the corn fields on 
the Sabbath day; and his disciples began as they went to pluck 
the ears of corn. 

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the 
Sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, 
-Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was 
a hungered, he and they that were with him? 

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar 
the high priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which is not lawful to 
eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them that were with 

And he said unto them. The Sabbath was made for man and 
not man for the Sabbath. (Mark 2 : 23-27.) 

Jesus had repeated conflicts with the Jews on this question. 
He would not honor the Jewish Sabbath, and consequently 
the Jews made war upon him, threatening to take his life. 

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would 
heal on the Sabbath day: that they might find an accusatiou 


against him. But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man 
which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. 
And he arose and stood forth. 

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing : Is it 
lawful on the Sabbath days to do good or to do evil? to save life 
or to destroy it ? 

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the 
man. Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so; and his hand was 
restored whole as the other. (Luke G : 7-11.) 

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with 
another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke G : 11.) 

We read in Luke 13 : 11-14, that "there was a woman 
which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed 
together, and could in no wise lift up herself." 

And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto 
her. Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 

And he laid his hands upon her; and immediately she was 
made straight, and glorified God. 

And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, 
because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto 
the people. There are six days in which man ought to work; in 
them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath 

With the commandment before his eyes, saying : ''Take 
heed to yournelves and bear no burdens on the Sabbath day 
as I commanded your fathers," (Jeremiah 18: 21), Jesus 
deliberately bade the cripple take up his bed and walk, on 
the Sabbath day. 

It is remarkable that those people who love to sabbatize 
so much, and to mako others do so too, do not see that while 
Jesus violated intentioiiallv the Jewish Sabbath, that he 
never gave his disciples the slightest hint that they should 
observe Sunday in any manner whatever. 

Pa.uly the founder of the Christian church, rejects the 

Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in 
respect of any holy day, or of Ihe new moon, or of the Sabbath 
days. (C'oloHHians 2 : IG.) 


One man esteemeth one Say above anothor: anolhcr rHtoom- 
oth overy day alike. Let every man bo fully persuaded in his own 

He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord ; and ho 
that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. 
(Romans 14: 5, 6.) 

But now, after that ye have known God, or ratlier are known 
of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, 
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days 
and months and times and years. (Galatians 4: 9, 10.) 

Bear in mind, reader, that there is not so much as a dot 
in the New Testament in favor of substituting Saturday for 
the Jewish Sabbath, or for observing it as a Sabbath day. 
Jesus and Paul both repudiate it. The history of the church 
is against the use of Sunday as the Sabbath. 

St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 345, says: 
" Turn thou not out of the way into Samaritanism or Juda- 
ism, for Jesus Christ hath redeemed thee; henceforth reject 
all observance of Sabbaths, and call not meats, which are 
reallv matters of indifference, common or unclean." 

St. Jerome, in the year 392, says : "On the Lord's day 
they went to church, and returning from church they would 
apply themselves to their allotted w^orks and make gar- 
ments for themselves and others. The day is not a day of 
fasting, but a day of joy ; the church has always considered it 
-a day of joy, and none but heretics have thought otherwise." 

Sir Wilham Danville, in his "Six Texts," p. 241, says: 
"Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sun- 
day was observed bv the Christian church as a Sabbath. 
History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication 
that it was at an}^ time so observed previous to the sabbat- 
ical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321. 

The Edict of Constantine. 

In the code of Justinian lib. 3, title 12, sec. 2 and 3, we 
find the first legal edict regulating the Sabbath : 

Let all the j udges and town people, and the occupation of all 
trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who 
;ire situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the 


business of agriculture, because it often happens that no other day 
is so fit for sowing corn and i)lanting vines ; lest the critical mo- 
ment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by 

By a Tnultitude of religious teachers of the«present day, 
this decree of Constantine is recognized as the foundation of 
all "Sabbath" or ''Lord's day" legislation; as the first 
recognition by the " body politic" of the usages or institu- 
tions of Christianity. But nothing can be more easily shown 
than that this decree was not made in the interest of Chris- 
tianity ; that it did not respect the Sabbath or Lord's day; 
and that it was not issued by a Christian ruler. 

The reader will notice that the decree was partial ; that^ 
it related only to certain classes, leaving other classes to 
still pursue their usual avocations ; and that it was respect- 
ing "the venerable day of the sun." Now we appeal with 
confidence to every student and reader of the Bible, that in 
all the scriptures there is no suclia day or institution known 
as "the venerable day of the sun." And we affirm that, in 
this decree, Constantine not only did not mention any Chris- 
tian institution, but he had no reference to any Christian 

On this point let such a reputable Avriter as Dr. Schaff 
testify : 

He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as 
(lies DomJDi [Lord's day], but as dies solis [day of the sun], in 
conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordi- 
nance for the regular consulting of the haruspex (321) . (" History 
of the Christian Church," vol. 2.) 

The edict of the sun's day was issued March 7 ; that for 
consulting the haruspex was issued the day following, 
March 8. This edict of March 8 concerned the inspection 
of the entrails of beasts as a means of foretelling future 
events. It was a heathen practice, and the decree was a 
heathen edict, made by a heathen ruler. This of itself is 
sufficient to show in what light we must regard his edict 
for honoring " the venerable day of the suu." 



Dr. Schaff says that Constantine issued his sun's day 
decree "in conformity to his worship of Apollo." Who was 
Apollo, and what relation did his worship bear to reverenc- 
ing "the day of the sun? " Webster says : "A deity among 
the Greeks and Komans, and worshiped under the name of 
Phoebus, the sun." 

Noted Men who have Rejected the Observance of Sunday as the 

For if there was no need of circnmcision before Abraham, or of 
the observance of Sabbaths, feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses, no 
more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will 
of God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been bom without sin. 
—Justin Martyr. 

They (the patriarchs) did not therefore regard circumcision 
nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain 
from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions which Moses sub- 
sequently dehvered to be observed in types and symbols, because 
such things as these do not belong to Christians.— Eusebius. 

As regards the Sabbath or Sunday, there is no necessity for 
keeping it ; but if we do, it ought not to be on account of Moses's 
commandment, but because nature teaches us from time to time to 
take a day of rest. ... If anywhere the day is made holy for 
the mere day's sake, then I order you to work on it, to dance on it, 
to do anything that will reprove this encroachment on Christian 
(spirit and liberty. — Martin Luther. 

The law of the Sabbath being thus repealed, that no particular 
day of worship has been appointed in its place is evident. — Milton. 

They who think that by the authority of the church, the ob- 
servance of the Lord's day was appointed instead of the Sabbath, 
as if necessary, are greatly deceived. — Melancthon. 

And truly we see what such a doctrine has profited ; for those 
who adopt it far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and supersti- 
tious observance of the Sabbath. — John Calvin. 

These things refute those who suppose that the first day of the 
week (that is, the Lord's day) was substituted in place of the 
Sabbath, for no mention is made of such a thing by Christ or his 
Apostles. — Grotius. 


It will be plainly seen that Jesus did decidedly and avowedly 
violate the Sabbath. The dogma of the assembly of divines at 
Westminster, that the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the 
moral law, is to me utterly unintelligible.— Archbishop Vv'hately. 

As for the Sabbath, we be lords over the Sabbath, and may 
yet change it into Monday, or into any other day as we see need, 
or make every tenth day a holy day only, if we see cause why. We 
may make two every week, if it were expedient, and not one enough 
to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from 
Saturday than to put difference between us and the Jews, and lest 
we should become servants unto the day, after their suijerstitiou. 
Neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught 
without it. — William Tyndall. 

The effect of which consideration is, that the Lord's day did 
not succeed in the place of the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was 
wholly abrogated, and the Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical 
institution. — Jeremy Taylor. 

The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always a 
human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the Apostles 
to establish a divine command in this respect ; far from them and 
the early Apostolic church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to 
Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false applica- 
tion of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear by that 
time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin. — Neander. 

Dr. McNight says: The whole law of Moses being abrogated 
by Christ, Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the 
Jewish holidays— not even the Sabbath. (Com. on Epistles, Col.) 

Sabbath Engenders Cruelty. 

The history of the Sabbatarians proves them to be both 
ignorant and cruel. We have only to make a few qaota- 
tions from standard authors to prove the charge. 

At the same time that James shocked in so violent a manner, 
the rehgious principles of his Scottish subjects, he acted in opposi- 
tion to those of his English. He had observed, in his progress 
through England, that a Judaical observance of the Sunday, 
chiefly by means of the Puritans, was every day gaining grouml 
throughout the kingdom ; and that the people under color of relig- 
ion, were contrary to former i)ractice, debarred such sports and 
recreations as contributed both to their health and amusement. 


Festivals which in other nations and ages are partly dedicated to 
public worship, partly to mirth and society, were here totally ap- 
propriated to the offices of relicaon and served to nourish those 
sullen and gloomy contemplations, to which the people were of 
themselves so unfortunately subject. The king imagined that it 
would be easy to infuse cheerfulness into the dark spirit of devo- 
tion. He issued a proclamation to allow and encourage, after 
di\ine service, all' kinds of lawful games and exercises; and by his 
authority he endeavored to give sanction to a practice which his 
subjects regarded as the utmost instance of profaneness and im- 
piety. ( "Hume's History of England," vol. 4, p. 447.) 

Hume, speaking of the Puritans, remarks : 

They [the house of commons] also enacted laws for the strict 
observance of Sunday which the Puritans affected to call the Sab- 
bath, and which, they sanctified by most melancholy indolence. 
(Vol. 5, p. 10.) 

Besides this, it is important to remark that the Puritans were 
more fanatical than superstitious. They were so ignorant of the 
real principles of government, as to direct penal laws against pri- 
vate vices. ("Buckle's History of Civilization in England," vol. 

The same spirit is rampant now in our prohibition laws, 
Sunday laws, profane swearing laws, etc. Repressing vices 
does not extinguish them but causes them to become more 
deep-seated and wide-spread. Moral natures can be made 
more moral only by the use of moral means. 

The Puritans. 

Not dancers go to heaven, but mourners; not laughers but 
weepers ; whose tune is Lachrymae, whose music sighs for sin ; who 
know no other cinquepace but this to heaven, to go mourning all 
the day long for their iniquities ; to mourn in secret like doves, to 
chatter like cranes for their own and others' sins. Fastings, pray- 
ers, mourning, tears, tribulations, martyrdom were the only sounds 
that led all the saints to heaven. ( " Bayne's Chief Actors in the 
Puritan Revolution," p. 112.) 

Presbyterianism in Scotland was the twin of English 
Puritanism ; Presbyterianism prohibited all sorts of pleas- 
ure 9s beino; sinful and of the Devil. 

■ - " -^ - - w ■ • • 


The following extracts are copied from Buckle's History 
of Civilization in England, volume 2, page 304 : 

Smiling, prQvided it stopped short of laughter, might occasion- 
ally be allowed; still, being a carnal pastime it was a sin to smile on 
Sunday. It was wrong to take pleasure in beautiful scenery ; for a 
pious man had no concern with such matters which were beneath 
him, and which should be left to the unconverted.. 

The unregenerate might delight in these vanities, but they who 
were properly instructed saw nature as she really was, and knew 
that she, for about five thousand years, had been constantly on 
the move, her vigor was well nigh spent, and her pristine energy 
had departed. To the eye of ignorance she still seemed fair and 
fresh ; the fact, however, was that she was worn out and decrepit ; 
she was suffering from 'extreme old age ; her frame no longer elas- 
tic, was leaning on one side, and she soon would perish. 

Owing to the sin of man all things were getting worse, and 
nature was degenerating so fast that already the lilies were losing 
their whiteness and the roses their smell. 

On this account, it was improper to care for beauty of any 
kind ; or to speak more accurately, there was no real beauty. The 
world afforded nothing worth looking at save and except the 
Scotch Kirk, which was inco^iparably the most beautiful thing 
under heaven. To look at that .was a lawful enjoyment but every 
other pleasure was sinful. To write poetry, for instance, was a 
grievous offense, and worthy of special condemnation. To listen to 
music was equally wrong ; for men had no right to disport them- 
selves in such idle recreation. Hence the clergy forbade music to 
bo introduced even during the festivities of a marriage. 

Dancing was so extremely sinful that an edict expressly pro- 
hibiting it was enacted by the General Assembly, and read in every 
church in Edinburgh. 

It was a sin for any Scotch town to hold a market either on 
Saturday or Monday, because both days were near Sunday. It 
was a sin to go from one town to another on Sunday, however 
pressing the business might be. It was a sin to visit your friend 
on Sunday ; it Avas likewise sinful either to have your garden wa- 
tered or your beard shaved. 

No one, on Sunday, should j)ay att^'ntiou to his health or 
think of his body at all. On that day horse ("xerciso was sinful; 
HO was walking in the fields or in the meadows, or in the streets, or 


enjoying the fine weather by sitting at the door of your own house. 
To go to sleep on Sunday before the duties of the day were over 
was also sinful and deserved church censure. Bathing, being pleas- 
ant as well as wholesome, was a particularly grievous offense ; and 
no man could be allowed to swim on Sunday. 

It mattered not what man liked ; the mere fact of his liking it 
made it sinful. Whatever was natural was wrong. The clergy 
deprived the people of their holidays, their amusements, their 
ishows, their games, and their sports ; they repressed every appear- 
ance of joy, they forbade all merriment, they stopped all festivities, 
tl\('y choked up every avenue by which pleasure could enter, and 
spread over the country an universal gloom. 

On Sunday, in particular, he must never think of benefitting 
others ; and the Scotch clergy did not hesitate to teach the people 
that on that day it was sinful to serve a vessel in distress, and 
that it was a proof of religion to let ship and crew perish. They 
might go ; none but their wives, and children would suffer, and that 
was nothing in comparison with breaking the Sabbath. So, too, 
did the clergy teach, that on no occasion must food or shelter be 
given to a starving man, unless his opinions were orthodox. 

Sunday Should be Kegarded as a day of East and Recreation. 

But every one should be protected in his individual lib- 
erty of choosing how he shall rest and enjoy himself. My 
neighbors certainly heve no right to say how I shall con- 
duct myself on Sunday, nor vvould they have if they were 
elected to the state or national legislature. My right to 
freedom of conscience is inalienable. It is true that I may 
be robbed of my liberty by those in power. The Sunday 
laws are the spoliation of the weak by the strong. A most 
remarkable trait of this nation is that it is constituted 
more than any other people that the sun ever shone upon of 
law makers and law breakers. It forebodes national decay. 
The people who indulge in this spirit are lacking in moral 
sentiment, and the current history of the politics and rehg- 
ion of this country furnish a lamentable proof of the f^ct. 
Unconstitutionality of Sunday Laws. 

There is no provision in the constitution requiring the 
citizens of the United States to observe Sunday in a religious 


manner; but there are on the contrary, distinct and unqual- 
ified guarantees made to secure the religious liberty of every 
one. Sunday is a day of rest in the eyes of the Constitution 
but not a day of rehgious worship. Constitutionally it is 
every one's privilege to spend Sunday as he chooses. He 
may, if he wishes, go to Sunday-school, class-meeting, preach- 
ing, prayer-meeting, and preaching again, and thus employ 
all his time on Sunday in religious exercises ; or if he prefers, 
he need go only once to service and fall asleep as soon as it 
begins. Others who desire it may visit the parks, green 
fields, ride upon the cool waters or visit the libraries, muse- 
ums, picture galleries, zoological gardens and such other 
places of amusement and instruction as they see fit. It is 
the right of every American citizen to decide in what way he 
should pursue his own happiness. 

We read in Article 6 of the Constitution, that " no relig- 
ious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or 
public trust tinder the United States." This foundation 
principle was supplemented by a provision in the first 
amendment, v*hich says: "Congress shall make no laws 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof." 

AVhat could be clearer than this, that the framers of the 
Constitution intended to exclude all religious questions from 
the charter of liberty ? The CouRtitution recognizes the be- 
liefs of neither Jew nor Gentile— neither Christian nor Infidel. 

The one special object of the framers of the Constitution 
was to establish a free government, and especially did they 
aim to secure to the people their individual rights, and no 
right was so greatly in demand by the people as the right of 
a free conscience; the right to exercise their own judgment 
upon questions of religion. 

"Wo, the people of the Unitod States, in order to form a nioro 
perfect union, establish juHtioo, insure donicHtic tranquility, provido 
for the common dofonse, promote tho ji;''iicral welfare and secure 
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain 
and cfltablish this Constitution of tho Unitod States of America." 


The Declaration of Indepeudence shows us that thisques- 
tiou of liberty was that which the framers of the Constitu- 
tion were seeking to estabhsh : " We hold these truths to be 
.self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are 
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; 
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 

With these words of the Declaration of Independence 
before us and the provision in Article 6 of the Constitution, 
namely, thus, "no religious test shall ever be required as a 
qualification to any public trust under the United States," 
and the further guarantee in the first amendment, that 
"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " — it is as 
clear as a sunbeam that all laws seeking to enforce a relig- 
ious observance of Sunday are unconstitutional, and should 
not be executed; and where attempts are made to bind 
religious observance of the day upon Liberal people they 
should resist it as an intolerable despotism. 

The different states of the Union have numerous Sunday 
laws, which in most cases are a dead letter. Take for 
instance Massachusetts. In its history seventy-five cases 
have been decided mostly in favor of a rigid enforcement of 
its Sunday laws. But both laws and decisions are*powerless 
in controlling the people to observe Sunday as Sabbath. 

The present laws of Massachusetts prohibit games, 
sports, concerts, plays, work, travel, idling, fishing, hunt- 
ing, buying and selling, but no one feels bound to obey 
them. Occasionally some new society springs up calling 
itself "The Society of Law and Order," and goes to work 
to set the world right. The first thing to be done is to 
enforce the Sunday law^s, preventing barbers from shaving, 
milkmen from distributing milk, newsdealers from selhng 
papers, fiower girls from selling flowers, cigar stores from 
selling cigars, croquet players from enjoying on their own 
premises an hour's exercise and amusement, steamboats 
from carrying excursions from the city, ball players from 


practicing tlicir games, the angler from taking a few trout, 
and many others from finding rest and recreation in other 
ways. Bnt these good people who think that the world is 
out of joint and the^^ are called to set it right, find it a 
greater task than they had bargained for, and so they soon 
t in\ and the old world wags along as it did before the " Law 
and Order" society came into existence. 

Sunday laws are a solemn farce, and a burning shame. 
They are a warfare upon the rights of man, in the interest 
of ancient traditions and modern despotism. 

As for travel on the Lord's day, lo ! how the people go their 
journeys, take their pleasure rides, rattle over the streets with 
their liorse-cars, thunder through the villages past churches with 
their locomotives, and plow the bogs and coastways with their 
yachts and excursion steamers. "Who questions the right? In the 
line of sport and diversion, how common such things as boating 
and fishing- and hunting and ball playing and roving over past- 
ures, through woods, picking berries and gathering nuts, and 
attending many a public entertainment to which an admittance 
fee is charged and taken for purposes of gain, but whose character, 
however sacred in name, is as secular as a banjo concert or a play 
of the drama. No complaint. As regards traffic, do not livery 
stable keepers let their horses as freely on Sundays as on week 
days? Do not druggists sell as freely what tliey possess, whether, 
cigars or whisky, hairbrushes or perfumery? Do not hotels ply 
their business as freely, always at the tobacco stand and often at 
the bar? Do not newsboys run as loose with their shouts of " Her- 
ald and Gazette?" While if you sail down of a Lord's day to 
Martha's Vineyard, whore "religion is the chief concern," shall you 
not see cigar stores, fruit stores, toy stores, souvenir stores, etc., 
undisguisedly open for business, and pedlars hawking canes and 
gim-cracks unchallenged by any deacon or dignitary? When, 
therefore, the legislature (of Massachusetts) enacted as lato as 
18G3 that whoever does any manner uf work or business on the 
Lord's day shall be puuished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, 
instead of a fine not exceeding ten dollars, the former penalty, it 
would seem that the intention must have been to provide a pen- 
alty commensurate with the gravest brejuihe.s of the statute. What 
are these, if th(y be not tlu.' running of i)assonger and freight rail- 


way trains, whoso raorccnary iioiso makes havoc of all Sunday 
calm and quiet; the repairing of railway tracks and bridges, the 
gangs of workmen oft so largo and belligerent enough to take a 
city ; the repairing of machinery in shops and mills ; the racket of 
the press turning out Sunday editions of newspapers secular as 
politics and earthly as a quack medicine advertisement? These 
truly are open and most gross violations of the law, but against 
them what murmur has been heard taking the form of prosecu- 
tion? Nay, the breaches of the law that are prosecuted and have 
been are for the most part the petty breaches, while the more 
flagrant offenders, as a rule, have offended with impunity and still 
so offend. 

Considering, therefore, the sturdiness with which the peoi)lo of 
the commonwealth resist the law's repeal, and the indifference \vith 
which they treat its violations, it must be confessed that Arteiiius 
Ward's sarcasm, as applied to "prohibition,'' applies here with 
peculiar force — in favor of the lii\\\ but against its enforcement. 
( " The Sunday Law of Massachusetts," by a member of the Mass- 
achusetts bar, p. 29.) 

Puck, in its history of the United States, says: '"The 
Puritans instituted many beautiful customs, and they had 
some very remarkable laws. They provided strict penalties 
against Sabbath breaking. On Sunday, they decreed that 
every able-bodied man, woman, and child in the country 
•should go to church three times a day. They forbade read- 
ing anything except the Bible, forbade walking in the fields, 
and generally shut down on amusements. Then they 
called it the Lord's day, and thus strove to make the Lord 


Ben. rranklin on Connecticut Sundays. 

The following is an extract from a letter written by Dr. 

Franklin to Jared IngersoU of New Haven. The original 

is in the possession of the New Haven Colony Historical 

Society : 

Philadelphia, Dec. 11, 1762. 

I should be glad to know what it is that distinguishes Con- 
necticut Religion from common Religion: — communicate, if you 
please, some of these particulars that you think will amuse me 
ae a virtuoso. When I travelled in Flanders I thought of your 



excessively strict observation of Sunday; and that a man could 
hardly travel on that day among you upon this lawful occasion, 
without Hazard of Punishment, while where I was every one trav- 
elled, if he pleased, or diverted himself in any other way ; and in 
the afternoon both high and low went to the Play or to the Opera, 
where there was plenty of Singing, Fiddling and Dancing. I looked 
round for God's Judgments, but saw no signs of them. The Cities 
were well built *and full of Inhabitants, the Markets filled with 
plenty, the People well favored and well clothed ; the Fields well 
tilled ; the Cattle fat and strong ; the Fences, Houses and Windows 
all in Eepair; and no Old Tenor anywhere in the Country: — which 
would almost make one suspect that the Deity is not so angry at 
that offence as a New England Justice. B. Franklin. 

If you have any inalienable rights your freedom of con- 
science must be one of the most fundamental. That is, it is 
for you to say how you will deport yourself on matters of 
religion. It is nothing less than despotism for your neigh- 
bor to step up to you and say: "Brother Jones, I want to 
see you at church to-day, and if you are not there I will see 
to it that there is a law passed which will make you attend 
church." This is what the Puritans actually did. They did 
it all for the glory of God, but our modern Puritans, the 
orthodox, seek to stop milk wagons from delivering milk on 
Sunday morning, flower girls from selling flowers on the 
streets of New York, all because of the welfare and purity 
of society. In several cities in Texas the sale of cigars on 
Sunday is a violation of the law. 

But where do these members of the state and national 
legislatures get their power from? Do they have any except 
that which is delegated to them by the people? They do 
not get the power from the people to usurp their inalienable 
rights. But here is a legislature passing laws upon the relig- 
ious observance of Sunday, who have never been instru<;ted 
to secure the enactment of such laws. And even if ninety- 
nine outof ahundrcd should so instruct their representative, 
the law could not be binding upon the one hundredtli person 
who did not so instruct his (mis)representative in congn^ss. 
He can be made to obey ])y their brute force. And this is 


what legislation amounts to generally. The people are not 
represented bj the law makers, but their interests and rights 
are invaded one after another until the poor people are sub- 
jugated. Among the rights of man perhaps there is none 
which is more generally recognized abstractly, and more 
frequently' violated practically, than his right to freedom of 
conscience, or, in other words, his religious liberty. How 
does this come about? One of the principal reasons for this 
anomally is that most people think that we ought to obe3'' 
without question the will of. the majority. They seem to 
think that an enactment by congress settles the question, 
whatever it may be. 

Here is the secret of the Sunday legislation. The church 
is a spiritual despotism always seeking to materialize. It is 
in the nature of power of all kinds to seek for more power. 
As a spiritual despotism the church is not a success*. The 
nineteenth century has said to this mental and moral Laza- 
rus, " Take up thy bed and walk." But it has no place to 
walk to, and hence it refuses to obey the voice of humanity. 
It is slowly, however, undergoing the transformation of a 
dissolving view. 

A Common Sense View of the Sunday Question. 

Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not 
man for the Sabbath. Now, at first sight, this seems a true 
and wise saying, but upon reflection we are forced to modify 
our estimate of it. In the first place there is no evidence 
that the Sabbath was ever made at all. It is the result of 
many things. The causes assigned for the institution of this 
day are conflicting. One reason assigned is because the 
Lord rested on the seventh day and was refreshed. It is a 
very empty noddle that can believe that statement. Such a 
childish view of creation would remind us of some one who 
had carried a heavy load up six flights of stairs, and then 
sat down putting and blowing until he was rested and re- 
freshed. Fancy an omnipotent being tired, hungry, and 
sleepy. A common sense view of the creation story leads us 
to reject it all as a myth. 


Another reason assigned for the origin of the Sabbath is 
that it was instituted in commemoration of God's dehverance 
of the Hebrews out of Egypt. But this is a flat contradiction 
of the previous reason given for observing the Sabbath. 
This contradiction is enough to invaUdate tBe evidence of 
both these testimonies; but. that is not all— the first story 
about God Almighty being tired after a week's hard work, 
and his resting and being refreshed on the seventh day, is 
so evidently a myth as to need no argument. It is on a par 
with all stories about the maij in the moon, and the bit of 
legend recounting the escape of the Hebrews from Egypt is 
full of contradictions and impossibilities which renders the 
story absolutely useless as a piece of evidence. 

No one knows when or where the observance of the sev- 
enth day as a day of rest and recreation began. It doubtless 
had sfaall beginnings in different countries and different 
times, and has been subject to the law of evolution. The 
Sabbath was not a zz2az2-made product, but grew in charac- 
ter and importance as time rolled on. Therefore it is not 
true to say the Sabbath was made for man. All the making 
we see in history is what the priests have done in this direc- 
tion. While* it is not true that the priests originated the 
Sabbath, yet it is true so far as we can trace the existence 
of the priesthood that we find them continually making the 
day a day for themselves. Sunday is priests' day. Every- 
body must go to church to listen to an ignorant man talk, 
scold, misrepresent, and abuse everyone who does not be- 
lieve as he does. And this is called Divine Service. When 
the priest rests temporarily from his lnl)ors upon the sinner 
and the skeptic, he trains his guns upon some of those who 
profess as strongly as himself to be true blue Christians. 
Take the extremes; the Salvation Arniv saint and a fash- 
ionable member of the fashionable Episcopal church. Tho 
latter looks down upon tho former and calls thorn "trash, 
rubbish," and other classical names, while tho soldier of the 
temporal army returns the compliment by styling his breth- 


ren of the Episcopal persuasion as "the Devil's dudes." 
Behold ! how these Christians love— to go for one another. 

We have seen that there is no history for the institution 
of the Sabbath. We have learned also that to keep this day 
holy did not mean to attend preaching or prayer-meetings, 
or special religious services of any kind. 

We have discovered that the Jewish Sabbath was not 
incorporated into the early Christian church. We have seen 
also that Jesus repudiated the Jewish Sabbath. That Paul, 
the founder of the church, also rejects the Sabbath; and 
that the early fathers did not observe it. That the great 
men of the middle ages repudiated it. It was left for 
the Puritans and Scotch Presbvterians to bewilder the un- 
developed mind and poison the susceptible hearts of the 
people, by teaching the gloomy doctrines of Puritanism 
and Presbyterian ism. Puritanism -and Presbyterianism 
diehard. They still live. Their spirit is hostile to freedom. 
Talk to them of liberty and you will readily wake the 
remark, "Oh yes, we beheve in liberty, but not in license.^'' 
Now what does license mean with such people? Why it 
means that you shall conform to their religious notions 
and practices. 

Especially must you remember the Sabbath to keep it 
holy ; that is, you are at liberty to do just as you please, if 
you please to do as pleases them. 

Protestants all agree upon the right of free conscience, 
the right to believe as one chooses (which however he never 
can do, because he must believe according to evidence). 

It is the great boast of Protestantism that the individ- 
ual has a free will (another error), and that he must search 
the scriptures, and decide for himself. They say every man 
has an open Bible put before him, and he must make up his 
own mind on the "truth of God." AVhen he has made up 
his mind, and seeks to enter a church which is full of liberty, 
what do the officers of the church say to him? Do they tell 
him that his conscience is free and the Bible is an open book 
for him to read and interpret as he can? Oh, no ! There is 


no free conscience, or open Bible business when one is getting 
into a church. On such occasions the candidate is taken by 
the proper officers into an ante room, and placed upon a 
Procrustean bed usually called a creed, and if he is the proper 
length, all right, but if not he must either be stretched or 
sawed off to- the proper dimensions. And these are the peo- 
ple who have such a holy horror of license. 

A friend of mine went once to buy a pup. The price was 
five dollars ; but as there were three pups in the basket my 
friend said he would give five dollars for one if he could have 
his choice. "Oh yes, you can have your choice," said the 
owner, "if ye'll choose this pup " [pointing to the most infe- 
rior one in the basket] . So it is with the church ; you can 
have all the liberty in the world to believe, if you believe the 
doctrines of this or that sect. You can have your own 
(choice, if you choose to obey the priesthood. You can have 
all the liberty to think as freely as you can on all subjects, 
if you will never mention your thoughts. Here is what M. 
Guizot, an eminent Christian writer has to say about the 
liberty granted by the church : 

"When the question of political securities came into debate be- 
tween power and liberty ; when any step was taken to establish a 
system of permanent institutions, which might effectually protect 
liberty from the invasions of i)ower in general; the church always 
ranged herself on the side of despotism. ( " Guizot's History of 
Civilization," p. 130.) 

With some people almost every act, if it be not strictly 
religious, is a desecration of the Lord's day. It is a solemn 
day, and for one to smile is a desecration of the holy day, 
while laughing is gross wickedness. To entertain one's 
friends on Sunday or to enjoy music, is carnal and there- 
fore a desecration of the Lord's day. To love flowers is 
evidence of de[)ravity ; to admire the beauties of nature, as 
a golden sunset, or a summer's sunrise, are palpable evi- 
dences of being a "man of sin." To do anything but attend 
church, look solemn, mourn and pray, weep and read the 
Bible, is of the Devil. 


AVhat a spectacle that man presents to the world who 
is struggling for perfection through religious beliefs and 
exercises. He never gets exactly there, but confidently and 
complacently thinks himself there or thereabouts. His next 
great work is to call upon others in life's highway to follow 
in his footsteps. He gets some followers who join with him 
in thanking God that they are not as other men are. Their 
self-righteousness becomes intense, and they become filled 
with the spirit of the Lord and preach believe (as we do) or 
be damned. Then begins persecution and torture. It is 
always your ''dead-in-earnest'" man that gets up perse- 
cutions. He is trying to gain perfection, and the natural 
ripe fruit of religious perfection is bigotry, intolerance, and 
despotism. Beware, oh! reader, of him who is seeking per- 
fection, for you are nothing better than a worm under his 
heel, and if he does not crush you, it is because he is better 
than his God. God will crush you in the next world for not 
agonizing for perfection in this. 

Everybody's Sunday. 

I quote the following from " The Sabbath Question," a 
very able pamphlet by my esteemed friend, xilfred E. Giles: 

We prize Sunday as a Sabbath or rest day. But it is a physio- 
logical fact that the cessation from action that refreshes or rests 
some persons on that day, does not so operate on everybody. "We 
would that Sunday should be a joy, a delight to all the people ; 
that every man, woman, and child should anticipate its approach 
with pleasure. On that day, if on no other, let the edifices of the 
church be open free to all who love its praises, prayers, and instruc- 
tions. Let the tables and alcoves of the public library be accessible 
to such persons as feel that they can find suitable mental and 
spiritual food. If the social science association, now active in 
promoting good fellowship and liberal feeling, desire to, let it also 
add its proportion of good things to the feast of the day. Let the 
art museums, halls of science, academies of music, public parks, 
and galleries of paintings disclose their treasures on Sundays 
freely to visitors. Let all persons be unmolested on that day to 
seek the enjoyment and kind of rest thoy may respectively need, 


they alone being judges thereof, always provided that no one shall 
infringe on the equal liberty of any other person. 

"Rest is not quitting 

The busy career- 
Rest is the fitting 

Of self to its sphere; 
"lis loving and serving 

The highest and best— 
'Tis onward, unswerving, 

And that is true rest," 


^'ery many regard it as an entity, a thing, rather than 
a process. It can no more be called a thing or an entity, 
than life, growth, or thinking, but like these, it is a process. 
"Dr. Whately speaks of it as if it were a 'thing' which could 
be handed about from one nation to another, or hidden 
away in some dark corner." (Fiske's " Cosmic Philosophy," 
vol. 2, p. 175.) In general terms we may define it as a pro- 
gressive movement of the individual and of society. Its 
results are the highest attainments, the acquisition of the 
best things, as wealth, culture, and morality. But these 
"best things" must be shared liberally by the laboring 
classes or the civilization cannot long survive. Every civili- 
zation of the past has been false in this respect. The 
pyramids of Egypt have a record of kings possessing millions 
of slaves. Greece produced a civilization inspired by a love 
of the beautiful, and has consequently contributed more 
toward the civilization of mankind than any other people. 
But no nation has conspicuously sought to secure to its 
people the rights of liberty and justice. And until the time 
comes when the people get these rights, there can be no true 
civilization. Humanit}^ must become the supreme purpose 
of hfe. The augean stables of legislation must be renovated 
for the presence of better men who shall take the places of 
the corrupt demagogues who now fill our highest offices of 
pubhc trust. The very fact that a dozen of our United States 
senators represent |160,000,000 speaks volumes of itself. 


Maii^'' of these men have secured the most if not all their 
great wealth since they have been the custodians of the peo- 
ple's pubhc interests. 

A true civilization has never yet appeared in the world. 
Much that is written in proof of our boasted civilization is 
twaddle. We are living in many respects as barbarians lived 
thousands of years ago. But to return to our definitions. 
It should be borne in mind that civilization is not an end, 
but a means to higher ends ; the results are not therefore 
fixed and final, as they in turn become causes of other 
results. If we regard civilization as a refined and cultui*ed 
state of society, we shall find that it means more than this 
—that it is rather the activity of mind which leads to higher 
refinements, to investigation, invention, discovery, and that 
it constantly inspires man with desires for still nobler achieve- 
ments. Civilization is the onward and upward movement 
of the human race. This fermentation of humanity is the 
product of many factors, and has been effected by all sorts of 
human activities. War, commerce, agriculture, inventions, 
crusades, discoveries, literature, art, religion, skepticism, 
government, languages, science, manufactures, climate, soil, 
food, and many other things have assisted in developing the 
mind and heart of man, and in improving his physical con- 
dition. In the present century, science has worked wonders 
by way of discovery and invention, increasing the intellect- 
ual activities, thereby widening the knowledge of men and 
augmenting the sum of human happiness. 

We should not overlook the fact that the world's 
advancement has been vastly more in the line of intel- 
lectual improvement and material prosperity than in the 
development of man's moral nature. Our civilization is 
much like our dress, it abounds in shoddy and tinsel. There 
is much in the dome of modern civilization that glares in 
the sunlight, while its foundations, which are out of sight, 
are rotten. Our great cities show us that the rich are be- 
coming richer and the poor poorer. Whore will this end? 
Can a splendid civilization be established on such a basis? 


Distinguished luen have entertained \\-idely different no- 
tions of the causes of human progress. One writer thinks 
that government possesses the secret pov/er of progress; 
another claims all advancement for Christianitv, and others 
that morality is the cause, while yet others attribute the 
magic power to the forces of nature. Mr. Buckle maintains 
that man's progress is due to his physical environment. 
And a moment's reflection will show us that there is much 
truth in his claim. We know that it is utterly impossible to 
establish a grand civilization in the tropics or in the polar 
regions. Suppose we should send all the ministers in the 
country, all the gold and silver in the United States treas- 
ury and millions of our best citizens to Greenland, could 
they build up a splendid civilization there? Not at all. 
Nature is too inhospitable. Society flourishes only in a tem- 
perate climate. If it were the church that created civilization 
then we should see similar results in different latitudes and 
among different races. But the facts are opposed to this 
claim. Wherever there is a high civilization there is good 
soil and temperate climate. As an illustration of this fact 
I may refer the reader to the Abyssinians, who have had the 
Bible in their possession about twice as long as the Anglo- 
Saxons; and yet they are all a race of barbarians still. 

Christianity was introduced in that country about A.D. 330. 
The people still remain rude and barbarous. 
Bruce relates how lie saw the people cut steaks from living 
cattle and eat them raw. (Ency. Brit.) 

Mr. Buckle claims that the favorable environment pro- 
duces progress in the race, and that as man progresses he 
gains more control over nature and utilizes her forces. He 
makes the desert to blossom, he overcomes diseases, as 
plague, leprosy, and prevents famine, and because of his 
increased knowledge wars are becoming less frequent and 
less barbarous. From these facts he claims that the 
advance of civilization is characterized by a diminishing 
influence of physical laws, and an increasing influence of 
mental laws. In proof of his position that climate, soil, 


and food are the detennining influences of progress, he refers 
us to the climate of Asia and Africa, as compared with the 
chmate of Europe and America, pointing out the latter as 
having vast mineral resources and great facilities of travel 
over highways, rivers, and lakes. The temperate climate 
is in every way therefore most favorable to the highest 

In the tropics man does not have to exhaust himself 
in obtaining his food, as it grows spontaneously and in 
abundance, but the burning sun takes out of him his energy 
and enterprise; while on the other hand the inhabitant of 
Greenland has to fight for life against the severe cold. His 
efforts and manner of life are exhausting, and tend to dwarf 
him physically, morally, and mentally. However much man 
may do in overcoming nature, these two hindrances of ex- 
treme heat and excessive cold remain insuperable barriers 
in his way. 

War has been a civilizing power, although it has been 
fearful expensive of blood, treasure, and pubhc morals. The 
American revolution of 1776 secured the independence of 
this country. The French revolution of 1789, transformed 
the whole of Europe. The recent great rebellion in this 
country emancipated the slave, and has made a more per- 
fect union of the North and South. The crusades were 
a great revolutionary movement in Europe, beginning in 
lOOG, and lasting about two hundred years. In fact there 
was no such a thing as Europe before this great epoch. The 
different countries which constitute Europe, had, prior to 
the crusades, almost no intercourse with one another, and 
consequently each was comparatively ignorant of the man- 
ners and custonjs of the others. The uprising of milHons of 
men, women, and children, as warriors of Cln-ist, wbo set 
out from time to time, from England, France, Germany, 
and Spain to rescue the Holy Land from the Infidel, the 
Mohammedan, brought wonderful experiences to the few 
Uicjusand who survived to tell their stories. The pathways 
over which these deluded peoj)le thronged were whit(?ned 


with the bleached bones of those who had fallen victims of 
disease, exposure, hunger, and the sword. What a mon- 
strous blind sacrifice this was, offered up on the altar of 
ignorance! Of course it could do the world no good to 
rescue the Holy Land. If God wanted that land rescued 
he could db it himself. And that he did not do so is self- 
evident that he did not want it rescued, besides, he would 
not allow even his own peculiar people lo rescue it. The 
church is still offering its sacrifices of public weal, of blood, 
and treasure in trying to rescue, abroad, the Pagan from 
his Paganism, and at home, the Infidel from his Infidelity, 
while God could do it himself if he so desired, but he does 
not, neither does he permit his owti "peculiar" people to 
do it. 

The crusaders had no commission from heaven for this 
business— they were not the agents of God, but only pre- 
tenders — and the church of to-day has no more right to 
pretend to save the world than the crusaders had to deliver 
the holy sepulchre from the so-called Pagans. The one and 
the others are alike impostors upon a credulous world. The 
crusades did nothing in the matter of rescuing the Holy 
Land. In this respect they were failures. The God of hosts 
did not lead them on to certain victory. But if they did 
not secure what they aimed at, they found something infi- 
-nitely better— a wider knowledge of the world. 

The intercourse between these different peoples which 
"uas occasioned by the marching of armies through their 
lands, gave new ideas to all; broke up the feudal sj^stem, 
and serfdom, secured the supremacy of a common law over 
the independent jurisdiction of the chiefs who claimed the 
right of private wars. In a word, it was the origin of Eu- 
rope, the first great awakening of the intellect of the masses. 

Not only were the old manners and customs clianged, 
but there was stimulated in society an increased mental 
activity; and the narrow routine in which it had been ac- 
customed to move was destroyed. Society began its new 


transfor;aiations into governments and nations, which says 
Guizot, is the characteristic of modern civiUzation. 

Industrial Influences. 

The causes which mostly disturbed or accelerated the normal 
progress of society in antiquity were the appearance of great men. 
In modern times the appearance of great inventions. Printing 
has secured the intellectual achievements of the past, and furnished 
a sure guarantee of future progress. Gunpowder and military 
machinery have rendered the triumph of barbarians impossible. 
Steam has united nations in the closest bonds. Innumerable 
mechanical contrivances have given a decisive preponderance to 
that industrial element which has colored all the developments 
of our civilization. The leading characteristics of modern socie- 
ties are in consequence marked out much more by the triumphs 
of inventive skill than by the sustained energy of moral causes. 
("Lecky's History of European Morals," vol. 1, p. 126.) 

It is not necessary to point in what way the printing 
press, art, commerce, and science, have promoted the pro- 
gress of the race. It is so apparent to every intelligent 
reader that these have been the stepping stones over which 
we have passed from barbarism to civilization, that ampli- 
fication is unnecessary. 

The splendid results of science are everywhere so manifest 
that we hardly need refer to them. What transformations 
the world has undergone through the uses of the steam 
engine, the spinning jenny, telegraph, ocean cable, rail- 
roads, sewing machines, photography, spectrum analysis, 
and thousands of other useful inventions. We see advance- 
ment achieved in free government, free schools, free libraries, 
free trade, labor reform, prison reform, and reform in Die 
treatment of lunatics, paupers and criminals, and n^forin 
seeking to adjust the wrongs perpetrated upon women. 

Besides all these improvements there is every indication 
in the spirit of to-day that we are soon to witness greater 
improvements, if not radical changes in government; 
changes affecting capital and labor. 



Skepticism played a prominent part in the eighteenth 
century. Doubt instead of faith, possessed the minds of 
many of the most distinguished men of thought, such as 
Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, Eousseau, D'Holbach, Gibbon, 
and others. Some of the more prominent skeptics rejected 
Christianity on the common ground of incredibility of the 
scriptures. But as they had no form of belief or knowledge 
to substitute in place of the dogmas they rejected, it was 
not difficult for the clergy with specious explanations to 
cover up the doubts and disbeliefs which the skeptics raised. 
Something more was needed to break the spell of supersti- 
tion and arouse the minds of men to thought and action. 
In the first part of the present century the philosophy of 
Evolution began to find place in the minds of most pro- 
found thinkers. Science has done what skepticism failed to 
accomplish ; it has given knowledge instead of faith. It has 
culti Abated intense inrellectual habits in modern society and 
given mankind a sure test of truth, in its method of verifica- 
tion, by means of experiment, observation and deduction. 


Science is inexorably hostile to supernaturalism — cannot 
recognize a particle of it. It knows nothing of a super-na^- 
ure; with science all is nature, and nature is all. From 
pi-e-historic times the race has been under the control of 
ignorance and superstition, the parents of fear and cruelty ; 
but now that science begins to dispel ignorance and super- 
stition, we find courage, kindness, and other humanities 
taking their places. And we should say just here that 
Infidelity is no longer synonymous with mere disbelief; it 
means more than this. It stands for all that reason ap- 
proves. Freethought is the first fruits of skepticism, and 
this means honest inquiry on all subjects, old and new. It 
means independence and manhood in private as well as 
public fife — the right of everyone to think and express his 
thought regardless of creeds and customs, the right to live 
his own life in the enjoyment of the broadest possible liberty 


compatible with the liberty of others. Freethinkers are the 
prophets of this age, proclaiming justice as the right of all, 
and predicting a day of wrath to those who trample upon 
the rights of a long-suffering people. In the light of science, 
priestcraft must fade away like snow under the increasing 
heat of the sun. 

Metaphysical Method. 

The church made no progress in science and ai-t for a 
thousand years. The energies of the mind had no outlet 
except in a few channels which were not fruitful. The schol- 
ars of the middle ages exerted great mental force upon 
empty questions, as "quiddities," "entities," "occult virt- 
ues," "eflBcient causes," "realism and nominalism," and 
the "essence of things." Were any of these problems ever 
solved? What corresponding benefit has resulted from 
these long and zealous discussions ? What general conclu- 
sions have been reached? AVhat first principles have been 
established by them ? 

The speculative philosophy created violent agitation in 
the church ; but from its very nature it offered no positive 
truth, no verifiable facts to take the place of theology. The 
metaphysical method was fruitless, because its supporters 
sought to explain every problem by the process of thought 

Tennemann has fairly stated the good and bad of scholastic 
philosophy. It gave rise to a great display of address, subtlety, 
sagacity in the explanations and distinction of abstract ideas, but 
at the same time to many trifling and minute speculations, to a 
contempt of positive knowledge and too much unnecessary refine- 
ment. (Hallara, "Middle Ages," vol. 1, p. 33.) 

For centuries the church maintained metaphysical dis- 
cussions about the nature of Christ, one party arguing that 
he was of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father, 
and an another as strongly argued that he was of like sub- 
stance (horaoiusion) as the Father. These controversies 
were attended with bloody conflicts. If one party were in 
possession of the revealed will of God, it was quite natural 


that cill other parties should listen to them. If they would 
not they incurred the wrath of God, and if God was angry 
his people ought to imitate him; if God was going to damn 
heretics in the next world, his saints, who are his agents 
here, ought to damn them in this. 


No writer of distinction has been able, publicly, to show 
that Christianity has been a powerful factor for good in the 
civilization of the- world. The definitions of civilization nec- 
essarily exclude superstition. We have seen that civilization 
is not an "entity" but a progressive movement produced 
by favorable conditions, for example, temperate climate, 
good soil, abundance of lakes, rivers, and mineral resources. 
Human activities upon a large scale have evolved still higher 
and better conditions for parts of the race. We have shown 
how war, commerce, agriculture, inventions, crusades, dis- 
coveries, literature, art, skepticism, government, languages, 
science, and philosophy have added to the sum of human 
well-being in one way and a,n other. 

The revival of learning did not spring from the church, 
but from Pagan literature, and Mohammedan schools. And 
it requires no great research to learn that the church has 
never been favorably inclined toward true learning, that is, 
toward science. It has insisted upon teaching an ignorant 
world the unknown and unknowable. "Carnal reason " and 
"blasphemous science'' were never pet lessons for its sub- 
jects. It chose rather the motto, " Ignorance is the mother 
of devotion." 

Some things Christianity has Not Done. 

It has professed to offer the w^orld a revelation of tlie 
will of God. And what has this book, the Bible, revealed? 
What information does it give man of the nature of this 
earth, of geology, geography, or of the millions of stars 



seen and unseen; of agriculture? Is it not true that he 
who invented the plow was a greater man than Moses? 
What does the Bible teach about government, agriculture, 
mining, inventions, discoveries, arts, printing, morals, lib- 
erty, and all other branches of useful learning? It contains 
no instructions upon the most important and useful sub- 
jects. And of itself, the Bible makes no claim to be an 
inspired revelation from God. The church, with all its as- 
sumptions and presumptions, is not the teacher of the world, 
as it has nothing but superstition to teach. 

The Conflict between Christianity and Civilization. 

Christianity is conservative, and, like the bourbon, never 
gets a new idea or forgets an old one, and it is in its very 
nature, therefore, non-progressive. The advancement of 
humanity has been achieved not by and through Christian- 
ity, but in conflict with and triumph over it. Christianity 
itself has been subject to modification and progress from 
forces without, rather than virtues within itself. The sav- 
age doctrine " believe or be damned," is no longer a popular 
pulpit theme. Eternal torment has ceased to torment or 
terrify the living, election and reprobation are no longer a 
commodity greatly in demand, and the divine right of kinga 
is rapidly fading out of mind. Infant damnation is not men- 
tioned—babes do not goto hell in these days— they all crowd 
into Abraham's capacious bosom. The Devil is not so black 
as he used to be— it was reported lately that he is dead. 
Taking it all in all, there has been a great improvement in 
the doctrines of the church. It should never be forgotten, 
however, that it professes to save the world, while the truth 
is just the opposite, that is, the world saves the church. 
Common sense has taught the church the foolishness and 
wickedness of these absurd and cruel doctrines, and has 
saved it from iniinediate decay by forcing it to give them 
up. The churcli niakes progress because it must, not because 
it seeks to do so. The sanity of man is saving him from the 
insanity of religion. The world moves and Christianity, 
though it hangs back, must nevei-theless move with it. The 


progressive element is in man, and when he is outside o! the 

church he advances in knowledge and morality; but within 

its walls he is sure to be conservative and non-progressive. 

For why should he seek to make any progress ? Has he not 

the revealed will of God — a complete guide to duty here and 

to destiny hereafter ? Surely he needs no books to supersede 

the Bible or other virtues than those awakened by the grace 

of God. 

The Bible Sanctions Great Crimes. 

We come now to look at the crimes perpetrated by the 
people of God, to show how the Bible and Christianity lie as 
insuperable obstructions in the pathway of progress. 

"Wars of Extermination. 

And when thou comest nigh unto a city to- fight against it, and 
it shall be, if it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee, then 
it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tribu- 
taries unto thee and shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace 
with thee, but will make war against thee (that is, by defending 
their wives and children) then thou shalt besiege it. 

And when the Lord God hath delivered it into thine hands, 
thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword ; 
but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in 
the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, 
and thou shalt eat of the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord 
thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities 
which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these 
nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God 
doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing 
that breatheth. (Deut. 20: 10-17.) 

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, 
and of the vale, and of the springs and all their kings ; he left none 
remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed as the Lord 
God of Israel had commanded. (Joshua 10: 40.) 

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amelek 
did to Israel (some three hundred years previous), how he laid wait 
for him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and 
buiite Amelek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare 
them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox 
and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Sam. 15 : 2, 3.) 


Now, thoreforo, kill every male among the little ones, and kill 
every -woman that hath known man by lying with him. 

But all iho women children that have not known a man by 
lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31: 17, 18.) 

To believe these bloody massacres to have been done 
by the express command of the supreme ruler of the uni- 
verse, made man brutal and despotic. And it is for this 
very reason that we have had so many wars among Chris- 
tian nations. The Old Testament is a record of cruelty and 
blood ; and if Ave fall back in time on this side of the cross 
of Christ, we shall find the same spirit, and the same bloody 
deeds perpetrated upon all those who were not numbered as 
the peculiar people of God. Constantine established Chris- 
tianity in the Roman empire by the sword ; and his holy 
successors have maintained it by the same power ever since. 


Although Christians now^ condemn polygamy, they up- 
hold a Bible that not only approves it, but also shows 
distinctly that God instituted it. 

Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred 
concubines, and was not condemned for his polygamy or 
concubinage, but was condemned for going after other 

Gods : 

And the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was 
turned away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11 : 0.) 

There is nowhere any condemnation of Solomon for his 
polygamy to be found in the Bibl(\ On the contrary, he is 
extolled to the highest degree. God is represented as saying: 
"I have found David, a man after mine own heart." (Acts 
13 : 22.) " Yet among many nations was there no king like 
unto him (Solomon) who was beloved of God." (Neh.l8: 20.) 

David, although he was a man after God's own heai-t, 
was not so highly esteemed as Solomon who was blest with 
a thousand wives. David did not have quite as many wives, 
and consecpiently did not achieve the royal grandeur of his 
son Solomon. The Lord gave David a number of wives: 
"And Abigail hasted and arose, and rode upon an ass with 


five daiiisols of li(ri''« that Avent with lier; and sho wont after 
the messengern of David and became his wife. David also 
took Ahinoani, of Jezreel, and they were also, both of them, 
his wives. (1 Sam. 25 : 42, 43.) 

And David took liiui moro wives out of Jerusalem. (2 Sam. 
5: 18.) 

And T o-ave thoo (David) thy master's house and thy master's 
wives into thy bosom. (2 Sam. 12 : 8.) 

The Christian apologist says that "the Lord endured 
them to practice polygamy in consequence of the hardness 
of their hearts." But it is explicitly shown in the above 
passage that the Lord gave David a number of wives. "I 
gave thee thy master's wives into thy bosom," certainly 
oxonorates David, and throws the responsibility on Je- 
hovah. David is not censured for his polygamy, but is 
uniformly spoken of with approval except in one instance. 
In counseling Solomon Jehovah said: "And if thou wilt 
walk in my ways to keep my statutes and commandments 
as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days." 
(1 Kings 3: 14.) 

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord 
and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all 
the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. 
(1 Kings 15: 5.) 

The truth is that nearly all the patriarchs and prophets 
were polygamists. They had not the faintest idea of true 
marriage, but took women according to their caprice, and 
kept them as long as they were pleased with them and cast 
them off v/hen tired of them. It is a remarkable fact that we 
do not often read of any marriage ceremony when these 
men after God's own heart took them wives. A man in 
these days who "takes up" with a woman without mar- 
riage is called a free-lover. Were the patriarchs who took a 
number of women as wives without a marriage ceremony 
free-lovers? Just now the Christians cannot endure polyg- 
amy among the Mormons. They indorse it as a Bible 
institution, G'ood enoujrh for Abraham. Isaac, and all the 


rest, but out of fasliion just now. The worst of it all is, the 
Christian seuds missionaries and Bibles to the heathens and 
afterward reports wonderful success in converting them 
from their Paganism and polygamy through the means of 
preaching, praying, and missionary work; but when he 
thinks of the Mormon he forgets what wonders the mis- 
sionary has done abroad in converting the polygamists, 
and insists that our Congress send Winchester rifles to 
Utah rather than missionaries. The Holy Ghost is of no 
account there. The gospel of peace must now as ever resort 
to the divine efficacy of bullets rather than Bibles, to secure 
a victory for truth, justice, and love. Christianity shows the 
same brutal instincts of war in its treatment of the Mor- 
mons that Constantine exhibited in establishing the church 

by the sword. 

The Subjection of "Woman. 

The Bible nowhere teaches the equality of man and 
woman, but from Genesis to Revelation it treats her as 
man's inferior. The mythology of the ancient Hebrew 
story of the Garden of Eden has proved to be a veritable 
curse to her. "And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and 
he shall rule oyer thee" (Gen. 3: 16), has been the poisoned 
chalice put to her lips for over two thousand years. Paul 
the founder of the church, insists upon the subjection of 
woman. "Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own 
husbands." (1 Peter 3 : 1.) 

Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands." (Col. 3: 18.) 
As the church is subject unto Christ, so lot the wives be to their 
own husbands in everything. (Eph. 5: 24.) 

The church has uniformly maintained this doctrine, and 
demanded in the marriage ceremony that she promise to 
love, honor, and obey her husband. 

For the man is not of the woman, hut the woman of the man. 
Neither was tho man created for the woman but the woman {was 
created) /or tho man. (1 Cor. 11:8, 9.) 


Woman is unjustly treated in the m.atter of divorce, in 
both the Old and the New Tcstanusnt. In tlie Old Testa- 


iiieiit the huybaud had the power to divorce his wife if she 
failed to please him, while the wife could not divorce her 
husband for any cause. 

When a man hath taken a wife and marries her, and it come to 
pass that she find no favor in his eye, then let him write her a bill 
of divorcement, and give it into her hand and send her out of 
his house. (Dout. 24:1.) 

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies and the 
Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou 
hast taken them captives and seest among the captives a beau- 
tiful woman, and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have 
her to be thy wife, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, 
she shall shave her head and pare her nails and she shall put the 
raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine 
house and bewail her father and mother a full month, and after 
that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall 
be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then 
thou shalt let her go whither she will, but thou shalt not sell her 
at all for money ; thou shalt not make merchandise of her because 
thou hast humbled her. (Deut. 21: 10-14.) 

Jesus says, ''Whosoever putteth away his wife, and 
marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever 
marrieth her that is put away from her husband, com- 
mitteth adultery." (Luke 16 : 18.) 

In this case there is a lack of qualification as to whether 
the be innocent or not ; and there is no allowance made 
in case the man who married her who was put away should 
be ignorant of her being a divorced woman. 

Again, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put 
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth 
her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall maiTy her that 
is divorced, committeth adultery." (Mat. 5 : 32.) 

Here we find not a word about the fornication of the 
husband. In short, there is no equality of rights and duties 
taught in these passages, elesus, in the gospels of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke teaches that it is adultery to marry a di- 
vorced woman. No matter what the crime of the husband 
has been, a wife is not allowed to put him away and marry 


another. If h.e is a foruicator, and his wife is divorced from 
him and remarries, she commits adultery. This is only a 
shght modification of the divorce law— that old law accord- 
ing to which the husband had only to write his wife a bill of 
divorcement and send her off; but it was not lawful for the 
wife to write a bill and send the husband away. All Chris- 
tian nations have repudiated the teachings of both the Old 
and the New Testament on the question of divorce. 

Marriage is now rapidly losing its sacramental char- 
acter. If matches are made in heaven, it is evident that 
the work is poorly done, and for all practical purposes they 
might as well be made on earth; and the general opinion is 
inclined so strongly in that direction that greater attention 
is now given to the laws of hfe, which instruct us how to 
make happy earthly matches, leaving the matches of heaven 
to be formed wiien we get there. 

The Jews practiced the sale of their daughters : 

And if any man shall sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, 
she shall not go out as the man-servants do. If she i)leases not 
her master who hath betrothed her to himself. (Ex. 21 : 7.) 

Jacob purchased Leah and Rachel, by serving La ban 
their father seven years for each of them. He agreed to 
serve seven years for Rachel, and after he had fulfilled his 
obhgation, Laban deceived him by palming off Leah in the 
dark upon him as Rachel. But though so deeply wronged 
Jacob did not dispair, but served another seven years for 
her whom he loved. See Genesis twenty -ninth chapter. 

In the purchase of wives there was usually no ceremony, 

more than the witnessing of the sale. AVe read of David and 

Solomon tnkiii<r wives, but no mention is made of any mai'- 

riage ceremony. 

/ A jealous husband could toi'ture his wife, by having her 

/ poisoned. See Nunil)ersr): 11—31. Then; was no such law 

for a jealous wife. There was no law of even-handed justice 

for a greatly wronge<l jind outraged wife. The laws were 

{ made for tlic benefit of man, not for the protection of 

/ woman. Why? Because they were made ^j^ man. 


Th-i New Testament as well as the Old, Holds "Woman in Servile 


Jesus and Paul were celibates, and their teachings and 
practice in regard to woman, have done her incalculable 

The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. 
N<-i1her was the man created for the woman; but the womun (was 
created) for the man. (1 Cor. 11 : 8, 9.) 

Paul gets this idea from the mythical story of ci'eation 
in Grenesis. 

In that childish story God is repi*esented as making 
woman as " an help meet," for Adam. Indeed her creation 
does not seem to have been intended at all, but the Creator 
seeing that it was not good for man to be alone, "caused 
a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took 
out one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead : And the 
rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made he a 
woman, and brought her unto the man." (Gen. 2 : 21, 22.) 
Woman was an afterthought to the Lords of creation then, 
and she is an afterthought to the lords of creation now. 

In that ancient myth woman was doomed to perpetual 
servitude because she was of an investigating turn of mind, 
and sought to know good and evil. The sentence was, 
''Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule 
over thee." (Gen. 3: 16.) 

Neither Jesus nor Paul proclaimed the dignity of mar- 
riage, or discerned the necessity of enlarging the sphere of 
woman. Jesus shared the common sentiments of his age, 
and looked upon the marriage relation as incompatible 
with the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. He 
deemed it necessary to call his disciples away from their 
families, and even to advise the men to make eunuchs of / 
themselves if they were able to do so. (Mat. 19: 12.) In j 
his teachings on the question of divorce, he is far from per- 
ceiving the even-handed justice which the case demands. 
He says (Mark 10: 11, 12) that if either the husband or 
the wife put away one the other and marry again, commits 


adulteiy. All second marriages would therefore be unlawful 
according to this teaching. In Matthew (5: 32) he permits 
the husband to put away the wife for the crime of fornica- 
tion, but makes no provision for the wife to put away the 
husband for the same offense. His disciples received an un- 
favorable impression of marriage, and after listening to him 
on this subject, they suggested : "If the case of the man be 
so with his wife, it is not good to marry.*' (Mat. 19: 10.) 
How could these plain people have misunderstood him upon 
a subject with so little chance for misapprehension? 

Paul's teachings were adverse to the marital relations : 
*'Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." (1 Cor. 
7: 27.) 

"It is better to marry than to burn." (1 Cor. 7: 9.) 
What an idea of marriage ! He does not have the least con- 
ception of love, or of the higher and refining joys of the 
(•onjugal relation. But permits him who cannot keep him- 
self from beastliness to marry. In this his judgment is 
remarkably short-sighted, for he does not regard the sacri- 
fice which the woman must make who marries the beast. 
He looks upon woman as a mere safety-valve for men's pas- 
si(ms, — her rights are not considered : she has no rights. He 
will permit man to marry, but young widows he denounces 
as heaping up damnation to themselves in marrying : " But 
the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun to wax 
wanton against Christ, they will marry having damnation, 
because they cast off their first faith." (1 Tim. 5 : 11, 12.) 
To marry was to wax wanton against Christ, which was 
nothing less than damnation! But old widows who were 
above sixty years of age could join the church if they had 
"been the wife of one man" and "had washed the saints' 
feet." (1 Tim. 5: 9, 10.) I wonder what he thought of 
rejecting all young widowers, and accepting none under 
sixty years of age, and only those of them who had washed 
their grandmother's feet? 

Paul not only advocates celibacy which is an evil to 
woman, but where the marriage relation exists he insists 


upon tho subjection of woman to her husband: "Likewise, 
ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands ; " (1 Peter 
3:1.) "Obedient to their own husbands;" (Titus 2: 5.) 
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection;" (1 
Tim. 2: 11.) "Therefore as the church is subject unto 
Christ so let the wives be (subject) to their own husbands 
iu everything J ^ (Eph. 5: 24.) 

The reasons given for woman's subjection are, "The 
man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. 
Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman 
(was created) for the man." (1 Cor. 11: 8, 9.) "Let the 
woman learn in silence with all subjection." Wherefore? Be- 
cause " Adam was first formed, then Eve." "And Adam was 
not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the trans- 
gression." (1 Tim. 2: 11-14.) Woman has always been 
the guilty cause of man's great misfortune. Adam was not 
to blame but Eve was the guilty one. Lot was innocent but 
his daughters were fearfully wicked. Joseph did not tempt 
anyone, but his master's wife tempted him. Job, dear man, 
was all patience, but his wife flew into a rage, and tried to 
have him curse God and die. Solomon, the pure-hearted 
and single-minded man of seven hundred wives and three 
hundred concubines was inspired to say, "One man among 
a thousand have I found, but a woman among all these 
have I not found." (Eccl. 7 : 28.) 

And to this day the Christian marriage ceremony de- 
mands of woman that she promise to love, honor, and 
obey her husband. 

The Bible Sanctions Slavery. 

What driveling idiots we mortals have been to suppose 
for a moment that a good being, a heavenly father, would 
let one part of his family hold the other in slavery I 

MoreoYer of the children of the strangers, that do sojourn, of 
them shall ye buy, and of their famihes that are with you, which 
they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. 

And ye shall take as an inheritance for your children after you, 
to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for- 


over, but ovor your brethren, the children of Inrael, ye shall not 
rulo one over another with rigor. (Lev. 25 : 45, 4G.) 

If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years ho shall serve, and in 
the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If ho came in by him- 
self he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife 
shall go out ^\ath him ; if his master has given him a Avife, and she 
has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall 
be her master's and he shall go out by himself. (Ex. 21: 2-4.) 

The New Testament Sanctions Slavery. 

Servants, obey in all things your mast<?r according to the 
flesh ; not with eye-service, as men pleasers, but in singleness of 
heart, fearing God. (Col. 3 : 22.) 

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to 
the good and gentle, but also to the froward. (1 Peter 2 : 18.) 

In addition to these positive indorsements of slavehold- 
ing, it should be remembered that Jesus never condemned 
it, and it was not difficult, therefore, for the church also to 
indorse and support it. 

The American Church was the Bulwark of American Slavery. 

The slave system in this country always received the 
support of the church. In the early history of the country 
it was occasionally condemned by some of the bravest min- 
isters, but as the nation grew powerful, so also did this sum 
of all villainies. Not only the ministers of the slave states, 
hut ministers of the free states lent their support to this des- 
potism. The Rev. N. Bangs, D. D., of New York, said : 

It appears evident that however much tho apostles might have 
deprecated slavery as it then existed throughout tho Roman em- 
pire, he did not feel it his duty as an embassador of Christ, to 
disturb those relations which subsisted between master and serv- 
ants, by donouncing slavery as such a mortnl sin that they could 
not be tho servants of Christ in such a relation. 

Rev. E. 1). Simms, professor in Randolph-Macon college, 
M, Methodist institution, affirmed that, "These extracts 
from Holy writ unequivocally assert the right of prop- 
erty in slaves.' 



The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D.D., late president of the (Meth- 
odist) AVesle.van university, in Connecticut: "The relation 
of master and slave may and does in many cases, exist un- 
der such circumstances as free the master from the just 
charge of immorality." 

Ilev. Moses Stuart, of Andover, insisted that, "the pre- 
cepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of 
slaves and their masters, beyond all question, recognized 
the existence of slavery." 

The Rev. Dr. Taylor, of Yale college, said: "I have no 
doubt that if Jesus Christ was now on earth, he would, un- 
der certain circumstances, become a slaveholder." 

The "Indej'enient" makes an admission. Speaking of 
the degradation of the Southern negroes, it says: "For 
this Protestant Christianity solely is to blame. It allowed 
slavery. It was slow to see its enormity. In the South it 
supported slavery with all its power. It let the negroes 
live in ignorance of the word of God. It raised no voice 
against unchristian laws forbidding slaves to be taught to 
read, and forbidding marriage." 

We could give hundreds of just such quotations from 
ministers who upheld slavery as a divine institution. And 
these were the blind leaders of the blind until leaders and 
people were precipitated into the life and death struggle of 
the nation. If the preachers had been honest and brave we 
would never have had to pass through the terrible ordeal of 
the great rebellion. 

The northern churches were almost all in sympathy with 
the "divine institution." Their ministers did not dare to 
condemn the system lest they should be deposed for their 
abolitionism. The writer was pastor of a Methodist church 
in Brooklyn in 1859, and was dismissed from his pastorate 
on account of his anti-slavery preaching. After President 
Lincoln's emancipation proclamation the synods and gen- 
eral conferences arrayed themselves against the system, but 
not before. 


The Heformation. 
It is a common belief in Protestant countries that Prot- 
estantism has been the cause of all modern enlig-htenment. 
"overlooking," says Mr. Buckle, ''the important fact that 
until enlightenment had begun, there was no Protestantism 
required. Enlightenment was the cause of Protestantism. 
Many causes had been at work to bring up the public mind 
to a higher intelligence and a braver love of independence." 

The reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, 
and was put down. Arnold, of Brescia was put down ; Fra Dolcino 
was put down ; the Albigenses were put down ; the Vaudois were 
put down; the Lollards were put down; the Hussites were put 
down. — Mill, on Liberty. 

The reformation was therefore the result of previous en- 
lightenment, a demand for larger liberty. It was the protest 
of reason against authority. Liberalism is the full protest 
against all forms of superstition and despotism. We have 
greatly over-estimated the work of the reformation. It did 
not greatly change the humanities of society, as the Prot- 
estants so fondly imagine. Protestants were found to be the 
persecutors when they had the power, just as the Romanists 
had been; cironmstances, however, modified and restrained 
them from such atrocities as the latter had perpetrated. 

Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, was in 
the sixteenth century, the principle as well as the practice of every 
church. (Hallam, "Middle Ages," vol. 2, p. 48.) 
Christianity Teaches Immorality. 

The doctrine of the Sbtonement has been the dry rot in 
our civilization. It has led millions to believe that they 
could escape the consequences of violated laws of nature. 
Millions of people believe to-day that they can go througli 
life in utter disregard of all that is right and good, and at 
the last moment when they come to shuffle off this mortal 
coil, all they will then need to do will be simply to call upon 
Jesus and receive his approbation and permission to enter 
the shining courts above. "Jesus died and paid it all," re- 
lieves the votary from the demands of morality, and, "the 


Devil tempted me and I sinned," exonerates him from all 
guilt. This sort of teaching has filled our prisons with 
those who fully believe it — and they are behind the bars 
because they have lived according to their belief. The ma- 
lignant and mendacious cry that Freethought leads the 
truthseeker always downward to a bad life is refuted by the 
fact that those who fill the prisons of our country are not 
Infidels, but believers in the divine revelation who have lived 
up to the advantages offered by the "gathering them in" 
doctrine of atonement. 

The murderers who are hanged on Friday in the different 
states almost every week, nearly all Christians, are prepared 
to go to heaven and there join in the company and songs of 
innocent children and pure maids and matrons who, by their 
presence, make heaven worthy the name; but these fiends, 
if they should happen to be pardoned by the governor, there 
could not be found a reputable Christian who would want to 
take one of them home to live in his familv of noble wife and 
lovely children, for a single day. And yet he is fit for heaven, 
fit for the company of angels and the purified of earth. The 
dying words of a good rehgions man were, "I am no Infi- 
del," and that man's name is John D. Lee, of Utah, who, in 
cold blood, murdered innocent men, women, and children, 
and aft^r eluding justice for twenty years or more was ar- 
rested, tried, found guilty and shot to death, with the words 
on his lips, "I am no Infidel." But his confession was un- 
necessary'-, as Freethinkers do not die that way, and the 
reason they do not die in that manner is because they do 
not beheve in the great bankrupt act — the atonement. 
They have no savior, and hence have to save themselves. 
They have no titles to mansions in the skies but have some 
claims on earth which they prefer to stay with as long as 
they can. 

The doctrine of the atonement is very immoral and no 
one can begin to estimate the wickedness it has fostered in 
souety, by leading people to believe they can pass through 
life committing all sorts of crimes and at last, when they 


find themselves about to die, can call upon Jesus and find 
eternal life " by believing on his name." 

" Long as the lamp holds out to burn 
The vilest sinner may return." 

'' This couplet has helped many a one to die easy." Oh, 

yes, it has, but it has encouraged too many to live easy — to 

live entirely too easy— so easy that they did not need to 

gain intelligence, to practice morality and pay their honest 


"Between the saddle and the ground 

Was mercy asked and pardon found." 

A salvation so extemporaneously performed, I fear 
could not endure; it resembles too closely the winter re- 
vivals whose fruits have all disappeared before the summer's 
harvest is over. 

"Nothing, either great or small, 
Nothing, sinner, no! 
Jesus did, did it all 
Long, long ago. 
Weary, working, burdened one, 
Wherefore toil you so? 
Cease your doing, all was done 
Long, long ago. 
Till to Jesus' work you chng 
By a simple faith. 
Doing is a deadly thing, 
Doing ends in death. 
Cast your deadly doing down, 
Down at Jesus' feet, 
Rise in him, in him alone, 
Gloriously complete." 

Where are those who have risen in him. gloriously com- 
plete? Show us just one. 

Prayer is Immoral. 

It is inmioral because it seeks to accomplish certain ends 
without using the projx'r means, or it tries to do what rea- 
son teaches us cannot be done. When some years ago we 
had 3'cll()w fever at Memphis the praying people all over 


this country united in supplicating tne unknown to remove 
the plague ; but notwithstanding their united petitions to 
a throne of grace and to " a prayer-answering God," they 
utterlj^ failed. The yellow fever remained until the ang(4 of 
frost came and touched the air With its white wings of health. 

Fred Douglass said he prayed for freedom twenty years, 
but received no answer until he prayed with his legs. 

"Give us this day our daily bread," is a childish super- 
stition. What millions of poor women have starved to 
death with this prayer on their lips. Jesus made a prayer 
in the garden of Gethsemane which was not answered. Now 
if the son of God may pray and receive no answer, what can 
the common rank and file sinner expect? 

When the native African sees an eclipse, he fancies some 
huge monster is attempting to devour the sun, or the moon, 
as the case may be. He resorts to his tom-tom, by which he 
hopes to frighten away the fearful monster. After the eclipse 
has passed away he turns to his skeptical brethren and says, 
"I told you so," just as his more civihzed brother who prays 
for rain, and after it comes, no matter whether it is a day or 
a month afterward, turns upon his incredulous friends, and 
asks them triumphantly, "Didn't I tell you so?" 

The tom-tom business in Africa and Christian prayers 
for rain, are on a dead level with each other. 

Sinner. — Is God infinite in his wisdom? 

Parson. — He is. 

Sinner.— Does he at all times know just what ought to be done? 

Parson. — He does. 

Sinner.— Does he always do just what ought to be done? 

Parson. — He does. 

Sinner.— Why do you pray to him? 

Parson.— Because he is unchangeable. ( " Ingersoll's Inter- 
views," p. 83.) 

Prayer is simply suppUcation to God. God is a mystery ; 
a mystery so profound that nothing is known of him, save 
that he is a mystery. Even his existence cannot be de- 
monstrated. His non-existence is equally undemonstrable, 



because no man has a definite conception of him to use as a 
starting point for investigation. Some claim that he is a 
person, others that he is omnipresent. Both of these can- 
not be ; for personaUty and omnipresence are incompatible. 
Prayer is based on the supposition of his personality. It 
impUes necessarily a person in a certain place, and possessed 
of certain attributes. He must be omnipotent, omniscient, 
unchangeable, and all-good. Nothing less than this will 
come up to the conception of what a God should be. Chris- 
tians tell us God possesses all these attributes. We accept 
their statement because it is impossible to prove the con- 
trary. On this basis, then let us examine prayer. 

God is said to be all goodness. Goodness is the per- 
formance of duty. Perfect goodness is the performance of 
all duty, and of nothing beyond. It is also the performance 
of all duty without reluctance or hesitation. Prayer is an 
insult to this quality of God's character. It implies that 
his goodness is not perfect. Every blessing for which 
man can ask, it is the duty of God either to grant or to 
withhold. In either case, prayer implies the possibility of 
imperfection. To ask God to grant a blessing which it is his 
duty to grant, is to assume that he will not do his duty 
without being urged. Such an assumption is downright 
insolence. To ask for a blessing which it is God's duty to 
withhold, is to assume that he can be persuaded to commit 
sin. This, too, can only be regarded as an insult. In both 
cases prayer is useless, because God is not likely to grant a 
blessing asked in the same breath an insult is given. 

We are told that God is pleased with prayer, because it 
shows our faith in his goodness. It rather shows our lack 
of faith. To be continually asking for blessings, implies 
a doubt whether we shall get them if we do ask. He who 
never prays shows the most faith, for he takes it for granted 
that God is good, and if he is good, he will provide for his 
children unasked. The child has faith that liis father will 
provide for him, but he never asks him to do so. Such 
conduct would prove him unworthy of his father's care. 


So with prayer ; the praying man is the true skeptic, and the 
Infidel is the true believer. 

Prayer makes God a changeable being. It implies that 
he will grant' any favor we ask, whether he had previously 
designed to do so or not. If we were privy to his designs, 
and knew what blessings he intended to bestow, we could 
ask only for such as he had intended to give us. In the ab- 
sence of this knowledge we pray blindly for blessings which 
it may be, he has determined to withhold. This necessarily 
implies that he maychange his designs. If the object pleaded 
for is a good one, such a change would be perfectly proper 
in an earthly monarch. In God it would be fanciful in 
the extreme. It would place his will at the disposal of a 
million fallible human beings. It would overthrow the har- 
mony of his government, and replace it by the most reckless 
chance. Our reception of a blessing would depend no longer 
on God's goodness; it would depend on whether some other 
person of greater persuasive power, was or was not asking 
an opposite blessing at the same time. God would be in 
constant indecision, and we should be in constant doubt. 
Prayer, then, is based on the changeablenessof an unchange- 
able being, and therefore valueless. 

Prayer, in theory, is based on the supposition of God's 
personality; prayer, in practice, assumes that God is omnip- 
-otent. It supposes that he can be in all places at all times. 
People are praying at all hours of the day and in all quar- 
ters of the globe. To hear them all God must be at such 
places at such times. To do this he must cease to be a per- 
sonal being, he must cease to be God. He will then have 
no intelligence, no volition, for these depend on a personal 
organization. Prayer, therefore, logically annihilates the 
being to whom it is addressed. 

Prayer implies doubt of the wisdom of God. To pray is 
to ask for a certain blessing. We assume that such a bless- 
ing is best for us, and inform God of the fact. After insulting 
Iiis goodness by asking for a blessing, we insult his intelli- 
gence by specifying what that blessing shall be. Prayers 


are rarely or never asked for general blessings alone. A per- 
son who asks for a blessing and leaves the choice of that- 
blessing wholly to God, is liable to be considered a lunatic 
by all true believers. Yet to do otherwise is to deny God's 
omniscience. It assumes that God does not know what our 
wants are. If God is a rational being, he can only treat 
such an assumption with contempt. Prayer has been tried 
for two thousand years and with no result. No prayer has 
ever been directly or indirectly answered by God. On the 
contrary, he apparently delighted in mocking those who call 
upon him. When the Ville du Havre went down, over two 
hundred ministers were praying for their lives, but in vain. 
Two girls who trusted not in prayers, but in swimming- 
belts, alone were saved. ("Logic of Prayer," Charles 

Some years ago when the yellow fever raged at Mem- 
phis, Tennessee, the pious people of this country prayed 
most devoutly to have the plague swept away. These 
prayers were repeated, were offered up by the most faithful 
in the Christian ranks, but all in vain. They had read in 
their Bible that the prayers of the righteous availeth much. 
They had been taught to believe that "all things whatso- 
ever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Mat. 
21: 22.) There is no one thing that Jesus taught more 
explicitly than this ; the prayers of those who truly believe 
shall be answered. He said : 

Therefore I say unto you, What thing.s so ever yo desire when 
yo pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. 
(Mark 21: 24.) 

But we see that prayers are not answered. And besides, 
tliose prayers which it is claimed are answered carry no 
proof of the fact with them. 

Did not millions of Christians pray for the restoration 
of President Garfield? How utterly delusive it is to palm 
off as truth the following promise upon credulous minds: 

Af^nin I say unto you that if two of yon shall a^rov ou onrth 
as touching anything yo Khali ask, it shall ho done for thoni of my 
Father, which is heaven. (Mat. 18: 19.) 


Jesu8 himself offered a prayer that was not answered. 
In the garden of Gethsemane he prayed : 

my Father, if it bo possible, lot this cup pass from mc ; nev- 
ertheless, not as I will, but as thou -vvilt. (Mat. 26 : 39.) 

There is no evidence that God has ever interfered in the affairs 
of men. The hand of earth is stretched uselessly toward heaven. 
From tho clouds there comes no help. In vain the ship\\Tecked cry 
to God. In vain tho imprisoned ask for liberty and light^the 
world moves on, and the heavens are deaf and dumb and blind. 
Tho frost freezes, the fire burns, slander smites, the ^\Tong triumphs, 
tho good suffer, and prayer dies upon the lips of faith. ("Inger- 
soll's Interviews,'"' p. 49.) 

"Ask and it shall be given thee" is an erroneous and 
immoral teaching. It is false. It is not true that people 
get what they pray for. We hear pious persons praying, 
"Give us this day our daily bread," but none of them ex- 
pect to get their bread in that way. What an irresistible 
smile would wrinkle the faces of the devout if a poor widow 
should pray: "Give us this day our daily coal," and another 
of the praying circle should ask, " Give us this day our daily 
potatoes," and another should beg, "Give us this day our 
daily beefsteak." 

While no one expects to get his daily supplies in answer 
to prayer, yet millions of pious souls are scandalized if you 
doubt the efficacy of prayer. They wiU admit that they 
have to work for their "dailv bread," "but after all God 
gives it to us just the same." He gives it to the sinner who 
does not pray in the same manner, that is, if he labors he 
earns his own bread. 

In vain the seamstress in her sickness and poverty, prays, 
" Give us this day our daily bread." She dies with these her 
last words on her lips. 

In vain the noble souls who have been thrown into prison 
for daring to tell and defend the truth, have fervently ap- 
pealed to the judge of all the earth for freedom. 

In vain the martyr looked to heaven for deliverance. 


Faith in Prayer. 
"I will close this letter with a little incident, the storv of 
which may not be so startling, but it is tnie. It is a story 
of child faith. Johnny Quinlan, of Evanston, has the most 
wonderful confidence in the eflScacy of prayer, but he thinks 
that prayer does not succeed unless it is accompanied 
with considerable physical strength. He believes that adult 
prayer is a good thing, but doubts the eflBcacy of juvenile 

"He has wanted a Jersey cow for a good while, and 
tried prayer, but it didn't seem to get to the central office. 
Last week he went to a neighbor who is a Christian and be- 
liever in the efficacy of prayer, also the owner of a Jersey cow. 
" 'Do you believe that prayer will bring me a yaller Jer- 
sey cow? ' said Johnny. 

"'Why, yes, of course. Prayer will remove mountains. 
It will do anything.* 

" 'Well, then, suppose you give me the cow youVe got 
and pray for another one. ' " (Bill Nye.) 

A Specimen Prayer. 

"0 Lord, our Heavenly Father, thou who dwellest in 
heaven [flattery] Thou art the creator and preserver of all 
things ; [flattery] we thank Thee that we live and move and 
have our being ; [Imagine a response of, 'You are quite wel- 
come, I am sure,'] that we are neither dead nor damned— 
for hadst Thou visited one sin in a thousand, we should 
be beyond the reach of hope and mercy. [He's not just, or 
He would have done it.] Thousands of our fellow moi-tals, 
as good by nature as we, and far better by practice, are now 
trying the unalterable laws of an unending eternity. [Not 
a very good comment on His justice.] Yet we have [by His 
partiality] still another opportunity to make our calling 
and election sure. We come before Thee, Lord, to ask the 
forgiveness of our sins. [Must have indulgence.] Lord, 
look in mercy on us and remember us in thy love. we 
pray Thee that Thou wouldst prosper Thy cause. [He 
hadn't thought of that for sometime before. J O send more 


laborers into the harvest, for the harvest is great and the 
laborers are few, [another piece of information.] Lord, 
hasten the time when all shall know Thee from the least 
unto the greatest [We are satisfied that yon are not dilli- 
gent enough in this matter, and we want you to hurry up.] 
Lord, check the progress of evil [You ought to know 
enough to do it without being told,] and promote the cause 
of truth, [which you would do, if you were as much inter- 
ested in the matter as we are.] Lord, hear our prayer 
[Do pay attention and don't forget in an hour, like a stupid 
dolt, what we have been telling you,] and answer our peti- 
cions. And in the end, when we are called to die, save us 
[which on account of our unworthiness, you may not do, or 
on account of your forgetfulness you may neglect, and 
leave us the subject of one of the devil's infernal jokes,] and 
the praise, and the honor, and the glory, we will ascribe 
through endless ages to Thee. [A great consideration, 
which will certainly be some inducement to you to save,— 
only just think what an advantage such an arrangement 
will be to vou.l All of which we ask for Jesus' sake. Amen." 

(Newspaper Clipping.) 
The Boston Man's Prayer. 
"Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a 
Boul, from hell if there is a hell, Amen, if it is necessary." 

Prayer an Echo. 

'From the earliest dawn of Nature's birth, 

Since sorrow and sin first darkened the earth; 

From sun to sun, from pole to pole, 

Where'er the waves of Humanity roll, 

The breezy robe this planet wears 

Has quivered and echoed with countless prayers. 

Each hour a million knees are bent, 

A million prayers to heaven are sent; 

There's not a summer beam but sees 

Some humble suppliant on his knees; 

There's not a breeze that murmurs by 

But wafts some faithful prayer on high; 


There's not a woe afflicts our race 

But someone bears to the Throne of Grace; 

And for every temptation our souls may meet 

We ask for grace at the Mercy Seat. 

The beams smile on, and heaven serene 
Still bends, as though no prayers had been; 
And the breezes moan, as still they wave, 
When man is powerless, heaven cannot save." 

— Ceiarles Stevenson. 

Other ^Worldliness. 
It seems to some people selfish for one to attempt to 
live in the personal enjoyment of this world, but to lend all 
one's energies toward gaining heaven is to them just right. 
Caring for one's health and family is selfishness, but strug- 
gling to save one's soul is the noblest work of life. 

The truth is Christian doctrines are purely selfish. 
When man does certain duties, as they are called, because 
he wants to get to heaven, his conduct is intensely selfish. 
The gospel constantly invites the followers of Jesus to act, 
from the consideration that ''great is your reward in 
heaven." Very many Christians say that if it were not 
for the hope of future reward, they would not try to do 
right. In other words they confess that they do not act 
fi'om moral motives. They are moved by the selfish mo- 
tives of other worldliness. To act morally we must do right 
because it is right and for no other consideration. When 
we look beyond the act to see how much we are going to 
make out of it, then our conduct is not moral. He who is 
going through the performance of duties because he wants 
to get to heaven, has yet to learn the meaning of morality. 

Christianity is Intolerant. 

lievelation does not admit of two sides to religious 
questions. There is only one side say the Moodys and 
Talmages, and that side is God's side. We have no right 
to question Holy Writ. We inuist accept it. "IJelieve or 
be damned," duos not admit of the latitude of free thought, 


or the right of reason to question the authority of the 

"Reason is 'carnal' savs the Christian idolator, and 
you cannot rely upon it—only trust in Jesus and you are 

The following historical facts prove beyond question 
that intolerance is the very soul of Christianity : 

"When any step was taken to estabUsh a system of 
permanent institutions, which might effectually protect 
liberty from the invasions of power in general, the church 
always ranged herself on the side of despotism.'' (Guizot's 
"History of Civilization in Europe," p. 154.) 

" Persecution for religious heterodoxy, in all its degrees, 
was in the sixteenth century, the principle as well as the 
practice of every church." (Hallam's "Middle Ages," vol. 
2, p. 48.) 

When Queen Mary, the first queen of England, had 
burned Latimer, Bidley and others, and her ministers had 
chided her for it, she replied that she did not think God 
could be angry with her for burning the heretics a few hours 
in this world, for their heresy, since he was going to burn 
them eternally in the next world for the same thing. 

Here you have the unadulerated article. It is nothing, 
if not intolerant, and in every age and country, with sword 
and hand, has commanded the trembling people to behevo 
or be damned. And the Christian who does not do his ut- 
most toward having heretics and infidels burned at the 
stake, is trying to be better than his God. 

Hell, Hades, Gehenna, SheoL 

How many mortals have been frightened out of their 
senses by the false alarm of fire in the next world. Preach- 
ers have pictured to mothers their children who died without 
the sacraments of the church being administered to them, 
as rolling on the fiery billows of hell. Parents have been 
demented by such descriptions, and have gone to lunatic 
asylums, or to their graves in consequence. Millions thus 


frightened have joined the church, and confessed belief in 
the creed, although they may not have known the meaning 
of a single article of it. But once having avowed their 
adherence to the church have lived lives of hypocrisy ever 
afterward because they had not the honor and the courage 
to break away from their bondage. What stories the pulpit 
has related of Infidels being struck dead for profanity a.nd 
blasphemy. These holy pulpit alarmists will have much to 
answer for if there is any such thing as a judgment day or a. 
God in Israel. 

It is plain that Jesus taught the doctrine of future, if 
not endless punishment. It was endless punishment to 
those who committed the unpardonable sin : "And whoso- 
ever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be 
forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
neither in the world to come." (Mat. 12 : 32.) 

Other passages may be cited to show that Jesus taught 
the horrible doctrine of eternal torment, and all efforts on 
the part of modern commentators to explain away hell are 
in vain. "And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment, but the righteous into life eternal." (Mat. 25: 46.) 
If these words do not teach the doctrine of endless 
torment, it would be a hard matter to express it in the 


Pictures of HelL 

John Bunyan describes this interesting locality, and its 
inhabitants thus: "All the devils in hell will be with thee 
liowling and roaring, screeching and yelling in such a man- 
ner that thou wilt be at thy wits end, and be ready to run 
stark mad from anguish and torment. * * -Sere thou must 
lie and /ry, and scorch, and Z?roi7, and hvrn forovermore." 

Tlic father of New England theology, Jonathan Ed- 
wards, portrays his own imagination after this fashion : 

"The saints in glory will be far more sensible, how 
dreadful the wrath of God is, and will belter understand 
how terrible the sufferings of the damned are, yet this will 


be no occasion of grief to thera, but rejoicings. They will 
not be sorry for the damned : it will cause no uneasiness or 
disatisf action to them, but on the contrary when they see 
this sight, it will occasion rejoicing, and excite them to joy- 
ful praises." 

Dr. Emmons reveals his own "true inwardness" by 
giving it the following description : 

"The happiness of the elect in heaven will in part 
consist of watching the torment of the damned in hell. 
Among these it may be their own children, parents, hus- 
bands, wives and friends on earth. One part of the business 
of the blest is to celebrate the doctrine of reprobation. 
While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on 
the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be 
eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy who in- 
stead of taking the part of those miserable objects will sing. 
Amen, hallelujah : praise the Lord." 

Again, he says: "When they (the saints) see how great 
the misery is from which God hath saved them and how 
great a difference he hath made between their state and the 
state of others who were by nature, and perhaps by practice 
no more sinful and ill deserving than they, it will give them 
more a sense of the wonderfulness of God's grace to them in 
making them so to differ. The sight of hell-torments will 
exalt the happiness of the saints forever." 

"Where saints and angels from their blest abode, 
Chanting loud hallelujahs to their God. 
Look down on sinners in the realm of woe 
And draw fresh pleasures from the scenes below." 

The Rev. Thomas Button, describes the bottomless 
character of his fancies thus : 

"The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the judge 
in the condemnation of her ungodly husband. The godly 
husband shall say. Amen ! to the damnation of her who lay 
in his bosom. The godly parent shall say hallelujah ! at the 
passing of the sentence upon the ungodly child. And the 


godly child, sball from his heart, approve the damnation of 
his wicked parents who begot him, and the mother who 
bore him.'" 

Thomas Vincent, a reverend, raves after this fashion: 
"This will fill them, the saints, with astonishing admiration 
and joy, when they see some of their near relatives going 
to hell; their fathers, their mothers, their children, their 
husbands, their wives, their human friends, and companions 
while they themselves are saved. * * * Those affections 
they now have for relatives out of Christ will cease, and 
they will not have the least trouble to see them sentenced to 
hell and thrust into the fiery furnace." 

My thoughts on awful subjects roll, 

Damnation and the dead; 
What horrors seize the guilty soul 

Upon a dying bed. 

Where endless crowds of sinners lie, 
And darkness makes their chains; 

Tortured with keen despair they cry, 
Yet wait for fiercer pains. 

Then swift and dreadful she descends 

Down to the fiery coast 
Amongst abominable fiends, 

Herself a frighted ghost. 

Adore and tremble, for your God 

Is a consuming fire; 
His jealous eyes with wrath inflame, 

And raise his vengeance higher. 
Almighty vengeance, how it burns! 

Vast magazines of plagues and stonus 
Lie treasured for his foes. 

These grisly rhymes full of horrors are found in one of 
Watt's hymn books written in England in the early part of 


the last century, but they are omitted from all modern 
hymn books. 

Tertullian finds great joy in the idea of seeing his ene- 
mies in hell. 

" What shall be tlie magnitude of that scene ! How shall 
I laugh ! How shall I rejoice ! How shall 1 triumph when I 
behold so many and such illustrious kings, who were said to 
have mounted into heaven, groaning with Jupiter their 
god, in the lowest darkness of hell." (Quoted by Lecky, 
'•Rationalism in Europe," vol. 1, p. 329.) 

"One great objection to the Old Testament is the 
cruelty said to have been commanded by God, but all 
the cruelties recounted in the Old Testament ceased with 
<leath. The vengeance of Jehovah stopped at the portal of 
the tomb. He never threatened to avenge himself upon 
the dead ; and not one word, from the first mistake in Gen- 
esis to the last curse of Malachi, contains the slightest 
intimation that God will punish in another world. It was 
reserved for the New Testament to make known the fright- 
ful doctrine of eternal pain. It was the teacher of universal 
benevolence who rent the vail between time and eternity, 
and fixed the horrified gaze of man on the lurid gulfs of hell. 
Within the breast of non-resistance was coiled the worm 
that never dies." (IngersoU's Reply to Black.) 

"Is it necessary that heaven should borrow its light 
from the glare of hell? Infinite punishment is infinite cru- 
elty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship 
an eternal gaoler hardens, debases, and pollutes the soul. 
While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, 
no perfectly good being can be perfectly liappy. Against 
the heartlessness of this doctrine every grand and generous 
soul should enter its solemn protest. I want no part in any 
heaven wh^re the saved, the ransomed, and the redeemed 
drown with merry shout the cries and sobs of hell— in which 
happiness forgets misery — where the tears of the lost in- 
crease laughter and deepen the dimples of joy. The idea of 
hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and 


revenge. This idea tends to show thnt our remote ances- 
tors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and 
caves — only from mouths filled with cruel fangs — only from 
hearts of fear and hatred — only from the conscience of hun- 
ger and lust — only from the lowest and most debased, could 
come this most cruel, heartless, and absurd of all dogmas." 
(IngersoU's Reply to Black.) 

"A religion that teaches a mother that she can be 
happy in heaven, with her children in hell— in everlasting 
torment— strikes at the very roots of family affection. It 
makes the human heart stone. Love that means no more 
than that, is not love at all. No heart that has ever loved 
can see the object of its affection in pain, and itself be happy. 
The thing is impossible. Any religion that can make that 
possible is more to be dreaded than war or famine or pes- 
tilence or death. It would eat out all that is great and 
beautiful and good in this life. It would make life a mock- 
ery and love a curse." (Helen H. Gardener's " Men, Women, 
and Gods.") 

"They divided the world into saints and sinners, and 
all the saints were going to heaven, and all the sinners 
yonder. Now, then, you stand in the presence of a gi-eat 
disaster. A house is on fire, and there is seen at a window 
the frightened face of a woman with a babe in her arms, ap- 
pealing for help; humanity cries out, "AVill some one go to 
the rescue?" They do not ask for a Methodist, Baptist, 
or a Catholic ; they ask for a man. All at once there starts 
from the crowd one that nobody ever suspected of being a 
saint; one may be, with a bad reputation; but he goes up 
the ladder and is lost in the smoke and flame; and a moment 
after he emerges, and the great circles of flames hiss around 
him; in a moment more helms reached the window; in an- 
other moment, with the woman and child in his arms, he 
reaches the ground and gives his fainting burden to the by- 
standers, and the people all stand hushed for a moment, a« 
they always do at such times, and then the air is rent with 
acclamations. Tell mo that thfit man is going to be sent 


to hell, to eternal flames, who is willing to risk his life rather 
than a woman and child should suffer from the fire one 
moment! I despise that doctrine of hell! Any man that 
believes in eternal hell is afflicted with at least two diseases 
petrifaction of the heart and putrefaction of the brain." 
(IngersolFs ''Ghosts.") 

The Church Opposed to Progress. 

"The church has opposed every reform and until quite 
recently, almost every useful invention. In the England of 
Elizabeth it was declared from the pulpit that the intro- 
duction of forks would demoralize the people and provoke 
the divine wrath." ( "Martj^rdom of Man," p. 38.) 

In the year 1444 Caxton published the first book ever 
printed in England. In 1474 the then bishop of London, in 
a convocation of his clergy, said, ''If we do not destroy 
this dangerous invention it will one day destroy us." That 
bishop was a prophet. 

Hume says: "It was remarkable that no physician in 
Europe, who had reached the age of forty years, ever to the 
end of his life adopted Harvey's doctrine of the circulation 
of the blood, and that his practice in London diminished 
extremely, from the reproach drawn on him by that great 
and signal discovei-y. So slow is the progress in every sci- 
ence even when not opposed by factitious and superstitious 
prejudices." (Hume's "History of England.'" ) 

When Buffon had published Natural History, in which 
was included his "Theory of the Earth," he was officially 
informed by the faculty of theology in Paris that several of 
his propositions were "reprehensible and contrary to the 
creed of the church." 

And when Columbus asserted the rotundity of the earth, 
he was ridiculed by the clergy, who maintained that "every- 
thing would roll off on the other side and be consumed in 
the fires of hell, if the world should turn over." 

Benjamin Franklin's experiments with the lightning, 
were condemned, as he was only invoking upon himself 
the wrath of an angry God, 


Professor Morse was freely ridiculed by the clergy for bis 
attempt to construct a telegraph. 

Roger Bacon, who invented spectacles and improved the 
telescope, was accused of having "sold himself to the devil." 

It is scarcely necessary to recall the persecutions of Co- 
pernicus, Bruno, and Galileo on account of their discoveries 
in astronomy. 

At Eaton, in Shelly 's time, "Chemistry was a forbidden 

We read in the life of Locke that "there was a meeting 
of the heads of the houses of Oxford, where it was proposed 
to censure and discourage the reading of this essay (On the 
Human Understanding) and after various debates, it was 
concluded that without any public censure each head of a 
house should endeavor to prevent its being read in his own 
college." (Spencer's ''Social Statics," p. 375.) 

" With respect to the last, the grandest of all human un- 
dertakings (that is the circumnavigation of the earth) it is 
to be remembered that Catholicism had irrevocably com- 
mitted itself to the dogma of a flat earth, with the sky as a 
floor of heaven, and hell in the under world." (Draper's 
"Conflict," p. 294.) 

The clergy for years have ridiculed Darwinism, and 
scouted the philosophy of evolution, even after the best 
minds of Europe had accepted it. But after all their ridi- 
cule of Darwinism, when Darwin had passed away the great 
heart of England did not fail to show the esteem in which 
the people at large held him, but lovingly laid his remains 
to rest in Westminster abbey with the dust of her noblest 

It is in the very nature of Christianity to persecute. It 
cannot live on terms of equality with anything on earth. 
It must rule. It must be supremo, and all institutions and 
all individuals must obey its mandates. It has in all of its 
vocabulary no such word as liberty. Every knee must bow 
to it, every tongue confess its authority ,'aud every pocket 
—pay it tithes. And so gigantic has been its power that 


its power that obedience in every age has been almost uni- 
versal. Millions have professed to obey the despot who 
have had no idea of what they were professing, and hence 
had not so much even as a dream of liberty. Poor man 
has been trampled in the dust, and sometimes used as food 
for cannon, to satisfy the ambition of pope or king, and 
when not serviceable in that way, he was forced to worship 
God and serve the priests. 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." 
(Rom. 13: 1.) That is, the higher powers are the priests. 
The commandments of these higher powers are expressed in 
such words as "submit," "obey," "serve," "pay tithes," 
"believe,"— and to heed them is to lose the higher oppor- 
tunities of manhood. 


William Cobbett on the English Church.— A Letter to Lord Ten- 
derten. Lord Chief Justice of England, April 6, 1829. 

"iWj Lord: I have read the report of your lordship's 
speech made on the 4th inst. on the second reading of the 
Catholic bill ; and there is one passage of it on which I think 
it my duty thus publicly to remark. The passage to which 
I allude relates to the character of the law established 
church, and also to the probable fate that will, in conse- 
quence of this bill, attend her in Ireland. 

" First, then, my lord, let us take your proposition ' that 
there is no church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your lord- 
ship has never read her history ; I am sure you have not. 
If 3'ou had you never would have uttered these words. 
Not being content to deal in general terms, I will not say 
she has been, and was from the outset, the most intolerant 
church that the world ever saw; that she started at first 
armed with halters, ripping- knives, axes, and racks; that 
her footsteps were marked with blood, while her back bent 
under the plunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and 
that for refinement in cruelty and extent of rapacity she 
never had an equal, whether corporate or sole. I will not 



thus speak of her in general terms, but I will lay before 
your lordship some historical facts, to make good that con- 
tradiction which I have given to your words. I assert that 
this law-church is the most intolerant church I ever read or 
heard of; and this assertion I now proceed to make good. 
" This church began to exist in 1547, and in the reign of 
Edward VI. Until now the religion of the country had been 
for several years, under the tyrant Henry VIII., a sort of 
mongrel; but now it became wholly Protestant by law. 
The Articles of Religion and the Common Prayer-book were 
now drawn up, and were established by acts of Parliament. 
The Cathohc altars were pull down in all the churches; th> 
priests, on pain of ouster and fine, were compelled to teacli 
the new religion, that is to say, to be apostates; and 
the people who had been born and bred Catholics were not 
only punished if they heard mass, but were also punished if 
they did not go to hear the new parsons ; that is to say, if 
they refused to become apostates. The people, smarting un- 
der this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several parts, and, 
indeed, all over the country. They complained that they had 
been robbed of their religion, and of the relief to the poor 
which the old church gave; and they demanded that the 
mass and the monasteries should be restored, and that the 
priests should not be allowed to marry. And how were they 
answered? The bullet and ba3''onet at the hands of Ger- 
man troops slaughtered a part, caused another part to be 
imprisoned and flogged, and the remainder to submit, out- 
wardly, at least, to the law-church. And now mark this 
tolerant and merciful church. Many of the old monastics 
and priests, who had been expelled from their convents and 
livings, were compelled to beg their bread about the coun- 
try, and thus found subsistence among the pious Catholics. 
This was an eye-sore to the law-church, who deemed the very 
existence of these men, who refused to apostatize, a libel on 
her. Therefore, in company, actually in company with the 
law that founded the new church cnnu; forth a law to punish 
beggars, by burning them in the face with a red-hot iron 


and by making them slaves for two years, with power in 
their masters to make them wear an iron collar. Your lord- 
ship must have read this act of ParUament^ passed in the 
first year of the first Protestant reign, and coming forth in 
company with the Common Prayer-book. This was toler- 
ant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here of this 
church being 'favorable to civil and religious liberty.' Not 
content with stripping these faithful Catholic priests of their 
livings ; not content with turning them out upon the wide 
world ; this tolerant church must cause them to perish with 
hunger or be branded slaves. 

"Such was the tolerant spirit of this church when she 
was young. As to her burnings under Cranmer (who made 
the prayer book), they are hardly worthy of particular no- 
tice, when we have before us the sweeping cruelties of this 
first Protestant reign, during which, short as it was, the 
people of England suffered so much that the suffering 
actually thinned their numbers ; it was a people partly de- 
stroyed, and that, too, in the space of about six years; and 
this is acknowledged even in acts of Parliament of that day. 
But this law-church was established in reality during the 
reign of Elizabeth, which lasted forty-five years; that is, 
from 1558 to 1603; and though this churdh has always 
kept up its character, even to the present day, its deeds dur- 
ing this long reign are the most remarkable. 

' Elizabeth established what she called ' a court of high 
commission ' consisting chiefly of bishops of your lordship's 
'most tolerant church,' in order to punish all who did not 
conform to her religious creed, she being 'the head of the 
church.' This commission was empowered to have control 
over the 'opinions' of all men, and to punish all men ac- 
cording to their 'discretion, short of death.' They had 
power to extort evidence by prison or the rack. They had 
power to compel a man (on oath) to 'reveal his thoughts,' 
and to 'accuse his friend, brother, parent, wife, or child;' 
and this, too, on 'pain of death.' These monsters, in order 
to 'discover priests,' and to crush the old religion, 'fined, 


imprisoned, racked,' and did such things as would have 
made Nero shudder to think of. They sent hundreds to 
the rack in order to get from them confessions, 'on which 
confession many of them were put to death.' 

''I have not room to make even an enumeration of the 
deeds of rehgious persecution during this long and 'toleri 
nnt' reign ; but I will state a few of them : 

1. It was death to make a new Catholic priest within 
the kingdom. 

2. It was death for a Catholic priest to come into the 
kingdom from abroad. 

3. It was death to harbor a Catholic priest coming from 

4. It was death to confess to such a priest. 

5. It was death for any priest to say mass. 

6. It was death for any one to hear mass. 

7. It was death to deny, or not to swear, if called on, 
that this woman was the head of the church of Christ. 

8. It was an offense (punishable by heavy fine) not to 
go to the Protestant church. This fine was £20 a lunar 
month, or £250 a year, and of our present money £3,250 a 
year. Thousands upon thousands refused to go to the law- 
church; and thus the Aead of the church sacked thousands 
upon thousands of estates! The poor conscientious Cath- 
olics who refused to go to the 'most tolerant church,' and 
who had no money to pay fines, were crammed into the jails 
until the counties petitioned to be relieved from keeping 
them. They were then discharged, being first publicly whip- 
ped, and having their ears bored with a red-hot iron. But 
this very great 'toleration' not answering the purpose, an 
act was passed to banish for life all these non-goers to 
church, if they were not worth twenty pounds, and, in case 
of return they were to be punished with death. 

" I am, my lord, not making loose assertions here ; I am 
all along stating from acts of Parliament, and the above 
form a small sample of the whole; and this your lordshi]) 
must know well. I am not declaiming, but relating undeni- 


ble facts ; with facts of the same character, with a bare list, 
made in the above manner, I could fill a considerable vol- 
ume. The names of the persons put to death merely for 
being Catholics, during this long and dreary reign, would, 
especially if we were to include Ireland, form a list ten times 
as long as that of our army and navy, both taken together. 
The usual mode of inflicting death was to hang the victim 
for a short time, just to benumb his or her faculties, then 
cut down and instantly rip open the belly, and tear out the 
heart, and hold it up, fling the bowels into the fire, then 
chop off the head, and cut the body into quarters, then boil 
the head and quarters, and then hang them up at the gates 
of cities, or other conspicuous places. This was done, in- 
cluding Ireland, to many hundreds of persons, merely for 
adhering to the church in which they had been born and 
bred. There were one hundred and eighty-seven ripped up 
and boiled in England in the years from 1577 to 1603 ; that 
is to say, in the last twenty-six years of Elizabeth's reign; 
and these might all have been spared if they would have 
agreed to go to church and hear the Common Prayer ! All, 
or nearly all of them were racked before they were put to 
death ; and the cruelties in prison, and the manner of execu- 
tion, were the most horrible that can be conceived. They 
were flung into dungeons, kept in their filth, and fed on bul- 
lock's liver, boiled and unwashed tripe, and such things as 
dogs are fed on. Edwards Genings, a priest, detected in 
saying mass in Holborn, was after sentence of death offered 
his pardon if he would go to church ; but having refused to 
do this, and having at the place of execution boldly said 
that he would die a thousand deaths rather than acknowl- 
edge the Queen to be the spiritual head of the church, 
Topliffe, the attorney -general, ordered the rope to be cut the 
moment the victim was turned off, 'so that' (says this his- 
torian) 'the priest being little or nothing stunned, stood 
on his feet casting his eyes toward heaven, till the hangman 
tripped up his heels, and flung him on the block, where he 
was ripped up and quartered.' He was so much aUve even 


after the boweling that he cried with aloud voice, *0h! it 
smarts!' And then he exclaimed, ' Sancte Gregorie, ora 
pro me,' while the hangman having sworn a most wicked 
oath cried, ' Zounds ! his heart is in my hand, and yet Greg- 
ory is in his mouth! ' "— Wm. Cobbett. 

" For centuries the Irish were killed like game. We know 
not a few good Englishmen who would be convulsed with 
the story of the murder of Smith or Jones, but whom the 
killing of an O'Tool or O'Dacherty, or any ' 0" or ' Mac' 
would not move in the least. That be it remembered in 
1825. The collection of tithes alone cost a million lives. 
Henry VIII. aggravated all the outrages ever committed, 
and was determined the faith of the Irish should undergo a 
radical Protestant conversion. Raleigh butchered Limerick 
garrison in cold blood after Lord Grey had selected seven 
hundred to be hanged. James I. confiscated one-tenth of 
all the land in Ireland and destroyed thousands of lives for 
religion's sake. Protestant rectors kept private prisons 
for confining all who dissented from their faith. Dr. Leland, 
a Protestant clergyman, wrote that the favorite object of 
the English Parliament was the total extermination of all 
the Catholics in Ireland. 

** Cromwell began by massacreing for three days the 
garrison of Drogheda after quarter had been promised. 
Whole towns were put up and sold. The Catholics were 
banished from three-fourths of Ireland and confined to Con- 
naught, and after a certain day every one found outside 
were shot or hung. Fleetwood, the reverend, said the Lord 
will appear in this work. On every wolf's scalp and priest's 
head a premium of £5 was offered ! Young girls and boys 
were gathered up by the thousands and carried to the 
West Indies. So by 1652 was once populous Ireland so 
devastated that an occupied house was a curiosity and 
commented on. Says one writer, S. W. Petry, 'There per- 
ished in 1041 over six hunderd thousand lives whose 
blood somebody must atone to God for.'" (Newspaper 


" The sword of the church was unsheathed and the world 
was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose 
eyes feasted on the agonies they inflicted. Acting as they 
believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of 
God ; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another 
world— hating heretics with every drop of their bestial 
blood ; savage beyond description ; merciless beyond con- 
ception—these infamous priests in a kind of frenzied joy, 
leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They 
crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering 
flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and 
eyelids ; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick 
thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their 
eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; cruci- 
fied them with their heads downward; exposed them to 
wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries 
and groans; ravished their wives; robbed their children, 
and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell. 
Millions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of 
bigotry. The Catholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran 
burned the Catholic, the Episcopalian tortured the Presby- 
terian, the Presbyterian tortured the Episcopalian. Every 
denomination killed all it could of every other, and each 
Christian felt in duty bound to exterminate every other 
Christian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed. 
.... They have imprisoned and murdered each other, 
and the wives and children of each other. In the name of 
God every possible crime has been committed, every con- 
ceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender 
and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes 
have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For 
more than fifty generations the church has carried the black 
flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power. 
During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been 
forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated ; with the 
clutch of avarice she has grasped ; with the jaws of a dragon 
she has devoured; pitiless as famine; merciless as fire; with 


conscience of a serpent ; such is the history of the church of 
God." (Ingersoll's " Heretics and Heresies." ) 


Capital Laws of Connecticut, Established by the General Court, 

December 1, 1642. 

1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or wor- 
ship any other God but the Lord God, he shall be put to 
death. (Dent. 13 : 6 ; 17 : 2, 3, and Ex. 22 : 20.) 

2. If any man or woman be a witch (that is, hath 
or consulteth with a familiar spirit) they shall be put to 
death." (Ex. 20: 18; Lev. 20: 27; Deut. 18: 10, 11.) 

3. If any person shall blaspheme the name of God, the 
Father, Son or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumpt- 
uous, or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse God in the 
like manner, he shall be put to death. (Lev. 24: 15, 16.) 

4. If any person shall commit any wilful murder, which 
is manslaughter committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, 
not in a man's necessary and just defense nor by mere casu- 
alty against his will, he shall be put to death. (Ex. 21 : 
12, 13, 14; Numb. 35: 30, 31.) 

5. If any person shall slay another through guile, either 
by poisoning, or other such devilish practice, he shall be put 
to death. (Ex.21: 14.) 

6. If any man or woman shall lie with a beast or brute 
creature, by carnal copulation, they shall surely be put to 
death, and the beast shall be slain and buried. (Lev. 20: 
15, 16.) 

7. If any man lie with mankind as he lieth with a 
woman, both of them have committed abomination, they 
both shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20 : 13.) 

8. If any person committeth adultery with a married or 
espoused wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely 
be put to death. (Lev. 20: 10; 18: 20; Deut. 22: 23, 24.) 

9. If any man shall forcibly and without consent ravish 
a maid or woman, that is lawfully married or contracted, 
he shall be put to death. (Deut. 22 : 25.) 


10. If any raan shall steal a man or mankind, he shall 
be put to death. (Ex. 21 : 16.) 

11. If any man rise up by false witnesses, wittingly and 
of purpose to take away any man's life he shall be put to 
death. (Deut. 19 : 16, 18, 19.) 

12. If any man shall conspire or attempt any invasion, 
insurrection, or rebellion against the commonwealth, he 
shall be put to death. 

"All these are copied from the capital laws of Massachu- 
setts, established (with her Body of Liberties) December, 
1641,— except the ninth (against rape of a married or be- 
trothed woman), which was enacted by Massachusetts in 
June, 1642. One of the Massachusetts laws punished msLTi- 
slaughter with death, was not adopted by Connecticut, and 
only the first clause of the Massachusetts law against con- 
spiracy, rebellion, etc. was taken." ( " Blue Laws, True and 
False," by Trumbull.) 

"December 1642, two additional capital laws were 
added to the statute of Connecticut," (Ibid. p. 59.) 

13. If any child or children about 16 years old and of 
sufficient understanding, shall curse or smite their natural 
father or mother, he, or they shall be put to death, unless it 
can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been un- 
christianly negligent in the education of such children or 
so provoke Jthem by extreme and cruel correction that they 
have been forced thereunto, to preserve themselves from 
death or maiming. (Ex. 21: 17, 15; Lev. 20: 9.) 

14. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son of suf- 
ficient years and understanding, namely, 16 years of age, 
which will not obey the voice of his father or mother, and 
that when they have chastened him, will not hearken to 
them, then may his father and mother, being his natural 
parents, lay hold on him, and bring him to the magistrates 
assembled in court and testify unto them that their son is 
stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and 
chastisement, but lives in sundry notorious crimes, such a 
son shall be put to death. (Deut. 21 : 20, 21.) 


"Persuade men that when ascribing to the Deity justice 
and mercy, they are speaking of qualities generally distinct 
from those which exist among mankind — qualities * which 
we are altogether unable to conceive, and which may be 
compatible with acts which men would term grossly unjust 
and unmerciful ; tell them that guilt may be entirely uncon- 
nected with a personal act that millions of infants may be 
called into existence for a moment to be precipitated into 
a place of torment, that vast nations may live and die, and 
then be rased again to endure never-ending punishment, be- 
cause they did not believe in a religion of which they never 
heard, or because a crime was committed thousands of years 
before they were in existence ; convince them that all this is 
part of a transcendentally perfect and righteous scheme, 
and there is no imaginable abyss to which such a doctrine 
would not lead." (Lecky's "Rationalism in Europe," vol. 
1, p. 384.) 

Lecky proceeds to show that men who believe in salva- 
tion by the church will always persecute dissenters, and all 
history attests the truth of his remarks. Catholics perse- 
cuted Protestants ; Protestants persecuted Puritans ; and 
Puritans, in there turn, persecuted other dissenters. Nor 
did the work stop here ; though limited in their power, yet 
these dissenters even to-day find ways by which they can 
persecute dissenters from them without resort to physical 
means. There was not, two centuries ago, a single sect that 
did not uphold persecution. 


"For sixteen years the church had rest. But in 1632 
Gkilileo ventured on the publication of his work entitled 
*The System of the World,' its object being the vindication 
of the Copernican doctrine. He was again summoned be- 
fore the Inquisition at Home, accused of having asserted 
that the earth moves around the sun. He was declared to 
have brought upon himself the penalty of heresy. On his 
knees with his hand on the Bible, he was compelled to 
abjure, and curse the doctrine of the movement of tlie 

BRT7N0. 331 

earth. What a spectacle! This venerable man, the most 
illustrous of his age, forced by the threat of death to deny 
facts which his judges as well as himself knew to be true ! Ho 
was then committed to prison, treated with remorseless se- 
verity during the remaining ten years of his life, and he was 
denied burial in consecrated ground. Must not that be 
false which requires for its support so much imposture, so 
much barbarity? The opinions thus defended by the Inqui- 
sition are now objects of derision to the whole civilized 
world." (Draper's "Conflict Between ReMgion and Science.") 


"On the 17th of February, 1600, a vast concourse of 
people was assembled in the largest open space in Rome, 
gathtred together by the irresistible sympathy which men 
always feel, with the terrible and tragic in human exist- 
ence. In the center stood a huge pile of faggots, from out 
its logs and branches rose a stake, crowding around the 
pile were eager and expectant faces, men of various ages 
and of various characters, but all for one moment united in 
a common feeling of malignant triumph, religion was about 
to be avenged; a heretic was coming to expiate on that 
spot the crime of open defiance to the dogmas proclaimed 
by the church — the crime of teaching that the earth moved, 
and that there was an infinity of worlds. The stake is 
erected for the ' maintenance and defense of the holy church, 
and the rights and liberties of the same,' Whom does the 
crowd await ? Giordano Bruno — the poet, philosopher, and 
heretic— the teacher of Galileo's heresy— the friend of Sir 
Philip Sidney, and the open antagonist of Aristotle. A 
hush comes over the crowd. The procession solemnly ad- 
vances, the soldiers peremptorily clearing the way for it. 
His face is placid though pale. They offer him the crucifix ; 
he turns his head ; he refuses to kiss it I ' The heretic ! ' 
They show him the image of him who died upon the cross 
for the sake of the living truth— he refuses the symbol ! A 
yell bursts from the multitude. 

332 tSfeTURE. 

" They chain him to the stake. He remains silent. Will 
he not pray for mercy? Will he not recant? Now the last 
hour has arrived— will he die in his obstinacy, when a little 
hypocracy would save him from so much agony ? It is even 
so; he is stubborn and unalterable. They light the fag- 
gots; the branches crackle; the flame ascends; the victim 
writhes— and now we see him no more. The smoke envel- 
opes him ; but not a prayer, not a plaint, not a single cry 
escapes him. In a little while the wind has scattered the 
ashes of Giordano Bruno." (G. H. Lewes's "History of 

"What a contrast between this scene of manly honor, of 
unshaken firmness, of inflexible adherence to the truth, and 
that other scene which took place more than fifteen untu- 
nes previously by the fireside in the hall of Caiaphas the 
high priest, when the cock crew, and 'the Lord turned and 
looked upon Peter.' (Luke 22: 61.) And yet it is upon 
Peter that the church has grounded her right to act as she 
did to Bruno. 

"But perhaps the day is approaching when posterity 
will offer an expiation for this great ecclesiastical crime, and 
a statue of Bruno be imveiled under the dome of St. Pe- 
ter's at Rome." (Draper's "Conflict Between Religion and 

Science." ) 

"A divine revelation must necessarily be intolerant of 
contradiction; it must repudiate all improvement in itself, 
and view with disdain that arising from the progressive 
intellectual development of man." (Draper's "Conflict Be- 
tween Jleligion and Science.") 

"The system (of mediaeval tortures) was matured under 
the mediaeval habit of thought, it was adopted by the in- 
quistors, and it received its finishing touches from their 
ingenuity. In every prison the crucWx and the rack stood 
side by side, and in almost every country the abolition of 
torture was at last effected by a movement which the church 

^ TORTURE. 888 

opposed, and by men whom she cursed.'' (Lecky's " Ration- 
alism in Europe," vol. 1, p. 333.) 

"But the most powerful consideration with a. truly be- 
nevolent man, if he be a Christian, for the extirpation of 
heresy by force, is the belief that its unfortunate victims will 
suffer unending torments in hell. Not for a few days, not 
for a few years must they suffer, but forever. Under the 
burden of such an awful thought can the sincere, kind- 
hearted Christian fold his arms and look calmly upon the 
efforts of men who are spreading unbelief or heresy in every 
direction, whe are not only going to hell themselves, but are 
taking with them thousands of their fellow men. Is it not 
natural that the sincere Christian, having the power, should 
suppress such .opinions ? that if necessary he should resort 
to coercive n-easures? that if new heresies are constantly 
springing up he should punish some of the offenders with 
severity, and thereby endeavor to deter others from leaving 
the true faith? Under the influence of such a faith, must 
not the desire for the suppression of the heresy be a meas- 
ure of the desire for the suppression of the most injurious 
and dangerous errors? and will not the zeal to destroy them 
be in proportion to the love of truth and regard for the wel- 
fare of humanity? Will not, therefore, the most sincere, 
earnest, and devoted Christians, in an age of unquestioning 
faith, be the most active and zealous persecutors? On a 
priori grounds we cannot help arriving at such a conclu- 
sion, and the facts of history attest the correctness of the 
conclusion thus arrived at from a consideration of the nat- 
ural effects of the doctrine that certain opinions involve 
merit and others guilt. 

It has been shown by Llorente that the men who 
founded the Inquisition were men whose characters were free 
from the stains of vice, and who were actuated in their cruel 
work of torturing and burning men, by the most philan- 
thropic motives. Many of the worst persecutors. Catholic 
and Protestant alike, as Mr. Buckle has mentioned, have 
been among the most conscientious of men and women. 


Their cruelty was the result of their faith. What, they 
argued, are the fleeting pains of a few thousand men com- 
pared with the eternal agony of the thousands and tens 
of thousands they will, unless cheeked, lead to hell. Thus 
argued the Christians when they first obtained power and 
used it in killing Pagans ; thus argued the Catholics of the 
Middle Ages; thus argued the Protestants of Geneva; thus 
argued the advocates of Episcopacy, the defenders of the 
Kirk of Scotland, and the pious Puritans of New England. 
In proportion as men believe that correct theological beliefs 
involve merit and are essential to salvation, a^nd that theo- 
logical errors involve guilt and are punished with torments 
in hell, and have power, they must be persecutors. Such has 
been the case in the past. It was oniy wbi^i rationalism, 
acting in opposition to the church, rendered persecution im- 
possible, that theologians discovered that the punishment 
of men was at variance with their religion. ' With the mer- 
its of this pleasing though tardy conversion,' says Lecky, *I 
am not now concerned; but few persons, I think, can follow 
the history of Christian persecution without a feehng of ex- 
treme astonishment that some modern writer, not content 
with maintaining that the doctrine of exclusive salvation 
ought not to have produced persecution, have ventured, in 
defiance of unanimous testimony of theologians of so many 
centuries, to dispute the plain historical fact that it did pro- 
duce it." ( " History of Morals," vol. 1, p. 422.) 

"But independently of the influence of the Old Testa- 
ment teachings, the Christian system makes persecution 
inevitable in proportion as the system is believed. Intoler- 
ance and persecution are a na.tural result of the doctrine 
that certain religious opinions involve moral guilt. The 
Bible declares, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.' This makes 
unbelief and heresy a crime, and unbelievers and heretics 
criminals. It makes it the religious duty of Christians to 
legislate for tbe extirpation of the former and the punish- 
ment of the latter. Can men treat with charity and kindness 


those with whom they believe God is displeased— those who 
are spreading doctrines that are regarded as plainly an of- 
fense to God? Is it not the wish of God that unbelief and 
heresy should be destroyed, and, as an obedient subject, is 
it not natural that the Christian should, as far as possible, 
carry out the wishes of the God he worships? 

The New Testament Teaches Intolerance. 

" 'He that believethnot shall bedamned.' (Mark 16: 16.) 
St. Paul exclaims (Galatians 1), 'If any man preach any 
other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him 
be accursed.' He also says (1 Tim. 6), 'If any man teach 
otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words, even 
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ . . he is proud, know- 
ing nothing . . from such withdraw thyself.' 'Of whom 
(1 Tim. 1) is Hymenseus and Alexander; whom I have de- 
livered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.' 
In these passages persecution and punishment are clearly 
taught for disbelief. And that such teaching has had an 
immoral tendency the excommunications, the imprison- 
ments, and sacrifice of the lives of heretics in connection 
with the history of Christianity abundantly prove."— B. F. 

"Are men restrained by superstition? Are men re- 
strained by what you call religion? I used to think they 
were not; now I admit thev are. No man has ever been 
restrained from the commission of a real crime, but from an 
artificial one he has. There was a man who committed mur- 
der. They got the evidence, but he confessed that he did 
it. ' What did you do it for ? ' ' Money.' ' Did you get any 
money?' 'Yes.' 'How much?' 'Fifteen cents.' 'What 
kind of a man was he? ' 'A laboring man I killed.' ' What 
did you do with the money?' 'I bought liquor with it.' 
'Did he have anything else?' 'I think he had some meat 
and bread.' 'What did you do with that?' 'I ate the 
bread and threw away the meat; it was Friday.' So you 
see it will restrain in some things."— Ingersoll. 


The Inquisition in Spain, 1568. 

"Upon the 16th of February, 1568, a sentence of the 
Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Nether- 
lands to death as heretics. From this universal doom, only 
a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A procla- 
mation of the king", dated ten days later, confirmed this 
decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into 
instant execution, without regard to age, sex or condition. 
This is probably the most concise death-warrant that was 
ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and 
children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines." 
(John L. Motley, "The Rise of the Dutch Republic," vol. 
2, p. 158.) 

The Inquisition. 

"In 1208. Innocent III. established the Inquisition. 
In 1209 De Montfoot began the massacre of the Albigenses. 
In 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran enjoine:? all 
rulers, 'as they desired to be esteemed faithful, to swear a 
public oath that they would labor earnestly and to the full 
extent of their power, to exterminate from their dominions 
all those who were branded as heretics by the church.'" 
(Lecky's "Rationalism in Europe," vol. 1, p. 38.) 

"Llorente, who had free access to the archives of the 
Spanish Inquisition, assures us that by that tribunal alone 
more than 31,000 persons were burnt, and more than 290,- 
000 condemned to punishment less severe than death. Thr 
number of those put to death for their religion in the Neth- 
erlands alone, in the reign of Charles V. has been estimated 
by a very high authority at 50,000, and at least half as 
many perished under his son. (Ibid, pp., 40, 41.) 
The Church Opposed to Liberty. 

"How has the church in every age, when in authority, 
defended itself? Always by a statute against blasphemy, 
against argument, against free speech. And there never 
was such a statute that did not stain the book that it was 
in and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who 
passed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining 


blasphemy, the church sought to prevent discussion- 
sought to prevent argument, sought to prevent a man 
from giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a 
dogma, a doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a stat- 
ute that prevents your speaking against it. In the silence 
of slavery it exists. It lives because lips are locked. It 
lives because men are slaves." (IngersoU, "The Reynolds 
Blasphemy Trial.") 

" So I say if you believe the Bible say so; if you do not 
believe it say so. And here is the vital mistake, I might al- 
most say, in Protestantism itself. The Protestants when 
they fought the Catholics, said : ' Read the Bible for your- 
selves—stop taking it from your priests— read the sacred 
volume with your own eyes. It is a revelation from God to 
his children, and you are the children,' and then they said : 
'If after you read it you do not believe it, and you say any- 
thing against it, we will put you in jail, and God will put 
you in hell.' That is a fine position to get a man in. It is 
like a man who invited his neighbor to come and look at 
his pictures, saying : ' They are the finest in the place, and 
I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at them 
the other day said they were daubs, and I kicked him down 
Btaire— now I want your candid judgment.'" (Ibid.) 

The Bible Opposed to Liberty. 

To-day we say that every man has a right to worship 
God or not, to worship him as he pleases. Is it the doctrine 
of the Bible? Let us see: 

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or 
thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which 
is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go 
and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor 
thy fathers; 

"Namely, of the gods of the people which are round 
about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the 
one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth ; 


"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto 
hira; neither shall thine eye pity him; neither shalt thou 
conceal him ; 

"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be 
first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand 
of all the people. 

"And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; 
because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord 
thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from 
the house of bondage." (Deut. 13: 6.) 

And do you know according to that, if your wife — your 
wife that you love as your own soul — if you had lived in 
Palestine, and your wife had said to you, "Let us worship 
a sun whose golden beams clothe the world in glory; let us 
worship the sun ; let us bow to that great luminary ; I love 
the sun because it gave me your face ; because it gave me 
the features of my babe; let us worship the sun,"— it was 
then your duty to lay your hands upon her, your eye must 
not pity her, but it was your duty to cast the first' stone 
against that tender and loving breast. I hate such doc- 
trine ! I hate such books ! I hate gods that will wTite such 
books ! I tell you that it is infamous. 

"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates 
whicli the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that 
hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, 
in transgressing his covenant, 

"And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped 
them, either the sun, moon, or any of the host of heaven, 
which I have not commanded ; 

"And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and in- 
quired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing 
(•ertain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel ; 

"Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman, 
whifh have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates 
even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with 
stones, till thoy die." (Deut. 17: 2-5.)— Tngersoll. 


"Secularism has no mysteries, no mummeries, no priests, 
no ceremonies, no falsehoods, no miracles and no persecu- 

"It is a protest against theological oppression, against 
ecclesiastical tyranny, against being the serf, subject or slave 
of any phantom, or the priest of any phantom. It is a pro- 
test against wasting this life for the sake of one we know 
not of. It proposes to let the gods take care of themselves. 

"It means the destruction of the business of those who 
trade in fear. It proposes to give serenity and content to 
the human soul. It will put out the fires of enternal pain. 
It is striving to do away with violence and vice, with ignor- 
ance, poverty, and disease. It lives for the ever present 
to-day, and the ever coming to-morrow. It does not be- 
lieve in praying and receiving, but in earning and deserving. 
It regards work as worship, labor as prayer, and wisdom 
as the savior of mankind."— Robert G. Ingersoll. 

Popular Questions and. Objections. 

1. It is objected that Freethought is destructive, not 

[a) It is destructive of error, crime, cruelty, supersti- 
tion and all kinds of wrong and oppression. 

ib) It is constructive in its defense and support of the 
rights of man, woman, and child. 

(c) It is constructive in seeking to establish the highest 
form of morality, that is, rational morality. 

id) It is constructive, because it inspires man with 
a thirst for knowledge, and puts him in sympa.thy with 


(c) It is positive and reconstructive in inspiring man 
with moral courage. 

"What will you give us in place of religion?" 

(a) We would put in place of religion, liberty, morality, 
honesty, courage, knowledge, and manliness. 

{b) Wo do not wish to take away the Golden Rule; but 
we insist that it is not a Christian precept. It was in the 
\\orld long before elesus, before Moses, and before Abraham. 
Long before the pyramids were built mothers called their 
children to their knees and said to them, "Children be good 
to each other to-day." This is the Golden Ptule. We see 
then that it is of human origin, and not a part of Chris- 
tianity, as Christianity is founded upon the supernatural. 
It is the old, old way that religions have of borrowing hu- 
man virtues and ascribing them to the gods. 

(c) Wo do not teach men to dispise charity, but to so 
improve liuman conditions that charity and charitable in- 
stitutions shall not be needed. 

(c?) " AVhat will you give us in place of the Bible? " 

AVe do not propose to take it away. We only ask peo- 
ple to read it as they do other books— accepting the good 
and rejecting the bad. 

" What are we to have in place of the consolation of the 

The gospel means glad tidings. What are the glad 

1. That man is totally depraved and poUuted. Good 
news ! 

2. That he deserves eternal torment. Glad tidings ! 

3. And that nine tenths of the human race will get tlioir 
deserts. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Glorious 
news I 

4. That hell is in view,— near at hand. Delightful 

5. That the reprobate cannot escape. Glorious gospel ! 

6. That God hates the most of the race and has from 
eternity doomed them to eternal woe. 



And all this is the gospel of glad tidings ! 

Suppose we expose the delusion of eternal torments, 
what does man want in its place? Does he need a smaller 
hell to taper off on, before he can give up hell altogether? 
What does any one want in place of infcint damnation? 
And so also with witchcraft, polygamy, slavery, and many 
other wrongs — must we have something to take their place? 
I heard of a kid gloved dude, who put his fingei' into a 
bucket of water, and after taking it out looked for the hole 
in the water. As well might the poor fellow sick in the hos- 
pital ask the doctor, who promises to cure him of the small 
pox, what he will give him in its stead. Does he want the 
itch or measles in place of the small pox? 

" How does the Freethinker come to know so much more 
tlian millions of good and great men who for eighteen cen- 
turies have believed in Christiauitv?" 

(a) Here we have the old question of majorities. 
Millions of good and great men once firmly believed in 


Luther said: "I would have no compassion on these 
witches, I would burn them all." 

John Wesley said : " Giving up witchcraft is giving up 
the Bible." 

Sir Matthew Hale believed in witchcraft. 

(b) The good and great men of many ages believed in 
hell— that is, for somebody else. Practically hell is now in 
the lower case, if not entirely closed up for repairs. 

(c) Millions of good and wise Djen for many centuries 
believed that this earth was flat, and that the sun went 
daily round it. And these good and wise people burned 
all those who did not agree with them. 

(d) Millions of the best of earth at one time believed 
that it was right and proper to hang a man for stealing a 

(e) At one time almost every body believed that it was 
well-pleasing to God, for Christians to torture and murder 


(f) Millions of the wisest and best men have at different 
times believed that the world was speedily coming to an end. 

(g) The great men of the past professed to believe in 
Christianity because they were compelled to do so through 
fear of persecution, torture, and death. Millions of prom- 
inent n en in society to-day, have to pretend to believe in 
the doctrines of the church in order to be respectable. 

{h) In every country under the sun people believe in 
their own rehgion. — The good and great Mohammedans, 
believe in Islamism. The good and great Buddhists believe 
in Buddhism, and the good and great Brahmins, believe 
in Brahminism. 

( i ) The wise men of to-day in Europe and America do 
not believe in Christianity. The men of science do not at- 
tempt to prove the claims of Christianity. 

It is claimed that Infidelity is demoralizing in its 

(a) With such lives before us as those of Paine, Inger- 
soll, Palmer, Bennett, Wright, Seaver, and many others 
this charge proves to be groundless. 

(b) Liberal principles are not degrading. Truth, lib- 
erty, and justice cannot demoralize, but blind faith does. 

"Infidels always repent on their death bed." 

(a) Paine did not. Bennett did not. Dr. T. Brown did 
not. Courtlandt Palmer, Horace Seaver, Elizur Wrigiit, 
did not— and millions of other good men have died tran- 
quilly without any belief whatever in another world. 

"Can Infidelity save the world?" 

One thing is certain, namely, that Christianity cannot 
do it, as it has been trying to do so for eighteen centuries. 

There is no such thing as salvation possible. 

The world can be improved most rapidly by allowing 
everyone to mind his own business — by giving man his nat- 
ural and equal rights, by inspiring him with liberty, for 
nothing so fully prepares people for liberty as liberty itself. 

" What has Freelhought done for the world?" 


(a) What has Christianity done for tlie world? Wh}' it 
has built schools, clmrches, and charitable institutions. 

(b) It is true that Christianity instituted schools, col- 
leges, and universities ; but not for the purpose of educating .V 
the people in truth, but in only such knowledge as would 
not conflict with its own superstitions. Christian schools 
have been for ages at war with science and liberty. 

(c) It is true that the church builds asylums for the 
poor— but it is the church that is in a large degree responsi- 
ble for the impoverished condition of the people. And the 
very money that builds the almshouse was begged from the 
poor, by the church. The church has nothing of itself to 
give except preaching. When the church builds an insti- 
tution it first becomes a beggar. 

(d) The church builds insane asylums. And the church 
has filled them with her own people. There are more people 
made crazy and insane by religious excitements than by 
any other one thing. 

" What have Infidels given for education, charity, and 

We will give the names of six noted Freethinkers, and 
could give more, but give these six to begin with : Stephen 
Girard, Robert Owen, James Lick, William Maclure, John 
Rodman, and Peter Brigham. These gentleman who were 
all Infidels, gave at least fifteen millions of dollars for educa- 
tion, science, and charity. The vast sum given by Stephen 
Girard for a secular education of orphan children has been 
stolen by Christians and put to another use. 

Orthodoxy and Liberalism Compared. 

1. Orthodoxy has a creed, but Liberalism has none. A 
creed is something you do not understand, but it is never- 
theless necessary for you to profess that you believe it— and 
the more unreasonable and impossible this something is the 
greater merit you have in saying you believe it. 

2. Orthodoxy has a Bible. Liberalism accepts all bibles 
and books for what they are worth. 



3. Orthodoxy has a savior— Liberalism seeks to make 
all men saviors. 

It should not be forgotten that the orthodox savior 
has failed after trying for eighteen centuries. He even fails 
to save his own professed people and to make them any bet- 
ter than other folks. 

4. Orthodoxy has a prospective heaven. Liberalism 
takes no stock in harps and crowns in the sky country— and 
is not terrorized by smoke from the sulphur lake. 

5. Orthodoxy insists that the most imperative duty is 
to believe, while Liberalism teaches that man should think, 
question, and investigate, and always be governed by 

The one preaches "he that hath ears to hear, let him 
hear (us the preachers); the other teaches that *'he who 
has brains to think, let him think." 

6. Orthodoxy commands you to obey. Liberalism in- 
spires you to defy despotism and to love liberty. 

7. Orthodoxy tells you that there is merit in believing. 
Liberalism shows you that there is no merit in belief. 

8. Orthodoxy maintains that belief is subject to one's 
will. Liberalism proves that intelligent belief depends upon 
evidence, and that religious beliefs are inherited. 

9. Orthodoxy hinges most of its teachings upon the tra- 
ditions of the past, the mysteries of the present and the 
hopes of an imaginary future. 

Liberalism admits of no postponement. *'One world at 
a time," and now is the time. 

10. Orthodoxy is opposed to the teachings of science. 
See the lives of Ga.lileo,*Bruno, Copernicus. 

11. Orthodoxy persecutes her own followers; for ex- 
ample: Dr. Thomas, Professor Swing, Professor William 
Robertson Smith of Aberdeen College, Scotland, Professor 
Winchell of Vanderbilt University, Professor Blauvelt, Pro- 
fessor John Miller of Princeton, New Jersey, and hosts of 


12. Ortliodo"sy seeks to guide men by authority, mot- 
toes, and texts. Liberalism inspires man to govern and 
guide himself through the exercise of his own reason. 

13. Orthodoxy teaches that the innocent must suffer 
that the guilty may escape. Liberahsm teaches that justice 
should be meted out to all. The great scheme of salva- 
tion failed because it was a " scheme." It is now pretty well 
known as a '' bankrupt scheme." 

14. ''The Bible has stood the attack of Infidelity during 
eighteen centuries." Ignorance has stood the attack of 
knowledge for a much longer time, and yet ignorance has 
not so very materially suffered— it is still ignorance. 

Vice has stood the attacks of virtue ever since the world 
began. Superstition has been besieged by science for many 
centuries, and yet superstition seems hale and hearty and 
bids fair to have a long life. Is it true that those who be- 
lieve in the Bible are willing to have it tested by reason, 
justice, or humanity? It is not true that it has stood the 
test of science. Christians are not willing to have the Bible 

" The Infidel rejects the religion of his mother." Not al- 
ways; but even suppose it were true, did not Jesus reject 
the religion of his mother? Did not Paul, Peter, Luther, 
Wesley— did they not all reject the religion of their mothers? 

Does not preaching consist in asking people to reject 
the religion of their mothers and to come over to the 
preachers's rehgion ? 

"Freethinkers are ruthless, and do not care how much 
they hurt our feelings. They speak coarsely upon sacred 
subjects." Yes; but do not Christians hurt our feeUngs? 
They send us to hell, and then put on a look of injured in- 
nocence if we do not sweetly return them "thanks." 

It is often charged that Freethinkers do not believe 
anything. While it is true that we are not strong in any 
form of religious beliefs, yet it is true that we have most 
positive and decided convictions in regard jbo this world. 
We advocate freedom, truth, justice, equity, and every 


known human virtue. These all have an existence, we be- 
lieve in all these present existing virtues. We believe in the 
realities, but the saint believes in the unrealities. He rel- 
ishes as the meat and drink of his soul, such airy nothings 
as: dreams, visions, trances, inspirations, revelations, mys- 
teries, miracles, witches, evil spirits, demons, devils, angels, 
immaculate conception, raising of the dead, drinking poison 
with impunity, omens, signs, sorcery, magic, resurrection, 
and ascension. 

/ " We are fools for Christ sake," says the apostle, and 
in the language of the Quaker, we must say, we have not 
the heart to contradict him. 

It is objected that "Freethought has no moral stand- 
ard." — Yes it has— it has Reason the only true lamp to 
man's path. "But Reason is fallible, you can not always 
trust it." You cannot always trust the reason of him who 
is not well developed mentally and well informed. But the 
Bible is fallible, and always fallible, and you can trust it iu 
but very few places except where it presents truth ; and this 
moral truth is older than it. So we could get along without 
the Bible, but we could hardly get along without Reason, 
although some people try to. 

"There is no agreement among Freethinkers.'' That is 
their glory. Freethought has no procrustean bed upon which 
it may bring all of its constituency to one and the same size. 
The glory of Freethought is that it inspires man to become 
free and possess his liberty against all invaders. To be free 
is to be a man, and not to be free is to be a slave. 

Is there, let me ask, anything like agreement among the 
creeds? Have the Bible expounders always seen eye to eye? 
Do the biblical critics all harmonize? Where, 1 would like 
to know, can you find more disagreement than iu the Chris, 
tiau church ? 


"Infidelity is honest. When it reaches the confines of 
reason, it says; I know no furtlier. 



Infidelity does not palm its guess upon the ignorant 
as a demonstration. Infidelity proves nothing by slander 
—establishes nothing by abuse. 

"Infidelity has nothing to hide. It has no 'holy of ho- 
lies,' except the abode of truth. It has no curtain that the 
hand of investigation has not the right to draw aside. It 
lives in the cloudless light, in the very noon of human eyes. 

"Infidelity has no bible to be blasphemed. It does not 
cringe before an angi*y god. 

" Infidelitj' says to every man : Investigate for yourself. 
There is no punishment for unbelief. 

" Infidelity asks for no protection from legislatures. It 
wants no man fined because he contradicts its doctrines. 

" Infidelity relies simply upon evidence — not evidence of 
the dead, but of the living. 

"Infidelity has no infallible pope. It relies only on infal- 
lible fact. It has no priest except the interpreter of nature. 
The universe is its church. Its bible is everything that is 
true. It implores every man to verify every word for him- 
self, and it implores him to say if he does not believe it, 
that he does not. 

"Infidelity does not fear contradiction. It is not afraid 
of being laughed at. It invites the scrutiny of all doubters, 
of all unbelievers. It does not rely upon awe, but upon roa- 
,son. It says to the whole world : It is dangerous 720?!; to 
think. It is dangerous not to be honest. It is dangerous 
730^ to investigate. It is dangerous not to follow where 
reason leads. 

"Infidelity requires every man to judge for himself. 
Infidelity j)reserves the manhood of man." (IngersoU's " In- 
terviews," p. 165.) 

Por.— Why, man, what's the matter? Don't tear your 

Sir Hugh.—l have been beaten in a discussion, over- 
whelmed and humiliated. 

Por.— Why didn't you call your adversary a fool? 

Sir Hugh.— My God ! I forgot it ! 


The Objects of Orthodoxy and Liberalism. 

Liberalism, like all reform movements, is poorly under- 
stood by all the masses. The more ignorant of the clergy 
know nothing of its real objects, and the few who do under- 
stand it dare not tell the truth, therefore we can not refer 
to its real objects too often. In this article we propose to 
place side by side the principle objects of Orthodoxy and 
Liberalism without comment so that our readers wiM be 
able to study them in contrast and see which is the more 

Orthodoxy seeks first and above all to glorify God; 
Liberalism seeks first and above all to glorify man. 

Orthodoxy seeks to save men from hell; Liberalism 
seeks to save them from vice, ignorance, and superstition. 

Orthodoxy teaches men how to die; Liberalism teaches 
them how to live. 

Orthodoxy says believe and be saved; Liberalism says 
behave and be saved. 

Orthodoxy promises happiness to the elect in another 
world ; Liberalism seeks to make all happy in this one. 

Orthodoxy encourages men to seek for mansions in 
the skies; Liberalism encourages them to secure homes on 


Orthodoxy teaches men to rely on God and pray; Lib- 
eralism teaches them to rely on themselves and work. 

Orthodoxy teaches self-abnegation ; Liberalism teaches 

Orthodoxy tells you what the Bible means; Liberalism 
takes it for granted the Bible means what it says. 

Orthodoxy says salvation is by faith only; Liberalism 
says it is by honesty, education, and industry. 

Orthodoxy offers a substitute for the sins of such as be- 
lieve; Liberalism expects every man to answer for his own 
acts. (Independent Pulpit.) 



Christianity Teaches: Materialism Teaches: 

1. The existence of a God infi- 1. The eelf-existence, the eter- 
nite in presence, yet a personal nity, and the sufficiency of nat- 
being ; infinite in knowledge, yet ure, and the universality and 
a being who cogitates, contrives, invariableness of natural law. 
plans, and designs, like man; in- 2. That in the history of this 
finite in power, yet the author world there has been an evolu- 
of a world full of imperfections ; tion from the simple to the com- 
infinite in goodness (as well as plex, from the special to the 
power), yet permits martyrs general, from the homogeneous 
to expire amid flames, and pa- to the heterogeneous. 

triots and philanthropists to 3. That good and evil are rel- 
languishin dungeons; unchange- ative terms. All morality is 
able, yet at a certain time af- founded on utility and evolved 
ter a beginningless state of in- by the wants and necessities of 
action, aroused from his idle- human existence. Honesty is 
ness and made a universe out right, not because a God has so 
of nothing; is not the cause of declared, but because man's se- 
evil, yet the creator of every- curity, safety, and happiness are 
thing and everybody save him- promoted by it. 
self; is free from infirmities, yet 4. That man's condition, al- 
ls pleased with some things and though imperfect, is improvable 
displeased with others ; is with- by his own unaided efforts. 
out body, parts, or passions* 5. That man should look to 
. and yet is of the masculine gen- himself and not to a spectacle of 
der. suffering and death of eighteen 

2. The original perfection of hundred years ago, for improve- 
everything. ment and elevation. 

3. The existence of a devil — a 6. That belief and unbelief are 
creature made by God, and the involuntary and without moral 
author of evil that will exist for- merit or demerit. 

ever. 7. That instead of worshiping 

4. That man is a "fallen creat- God, we should direct all our ef- 
ure," and unable to improve by forts to improve ourselves, lot- 
his own unassisted efforts. ting "gods attend on things for 

5. That man can be "saved" gods to know." 

only through the blood and 8. That man, wherever he may 

merits of Christ. exist, it is rational to believe, 

will be fitted to his condition. 


6. That belief in the Christian An unbroken everlaeting sleep, 
system involves moral merit ; which probably awaits us all, af- 
disbelief, sin. fords no ground for fear. And 

7. That it is man's duty to how infinitely preferable to a fut- 
worship God by prayer and ure state of imnishment in which 
praise. the majority of our race will be 

8. That a comparatively small forever miserable ! 

portion of mankind in the future 9. That the teachings of rea- 

will be happy ; the greater por- son and the lessons of experience 

tion will be in torment eternally, are the only revelations man has 

9. That man has received a received. 

book revelation, of which, how- 10. That the Bible should be 

ever, but a comparatively small tested by the same rules of his- 

part of the race has ever ob- torical and modern criticism 

tained information. that are applied to other an- 

10. That reason should be cient documents, 
subordinated to the teachings 11. That the barbarous acts 
of the Bible. of the Israelites, like those of 

11. That the acts of the other ancient nations, were the 
Jews, such as are practiced now result of their undeveloped, and 
by barbarians only, were com- uncivilized condition, 
manded by God, and were, there- 12. That the universe is full of 
fore, right. mysteries, above our compreheu- 

12. That there are mysteries sion, but none contrary to our 
contrary to experience and rea- reason. 

son, which must nevertheless be 13. That the difference of opin- 

believed. ion among Liberals is consistent 

13. Although God has given with their common position that 
man a revelation, there is great man has no infallible standard, 
uncertainty as to what he meant That the enlightened reason of 
to say on several subjects of man is the highest and best 
great importance. standard lie possesses. 

14. That woman is man's in- 14. That woman is man's 
forior and subordinate, was made equal and natural companion 
for his gratification and convcn- — exists for him only in the sense 
ienco, while man was made for in which he exists for her. 
himself and the glory of God. 15. That slavery, polygamy, 

15. That God has approved and despotism are evils wheu- 
and sanctioned polygamy, slav- ever and wherever they exist, 
ery, and despotism. IG. That man should attend 

to the affairs of this world, and. 


16. That man should take no contrary to tho notion of Josup, 
thought for the morrow. Ho should take "thought for tho 
should pattern after the lilies of morrow." 

the field. 17. That evil is due to natural 

17. That man's ills and suffer- causes. Man can p^adually ro- 
ings are ascribable largely to move the evils that afflict him 
tho immediate agency of a per- by becoming acquainted with 
sonal, malicious Devil — a being his nature, relations, and sur- 
of extended presence, of almost roundings. 

infinite Ivuowledge, of great strat- 18. Jesus was probably a re- 
ogy, and immense power. former, a "come-outer," an "In- 

18. That Jesus was God Al- fidel" of his time. Wo can es- 
mighty incased in human flesh, teem him as a benefa/Ctor with- 

19. That the golden age of the out worshiping him as a God. 
earth was in the past. 19. The present is better than 

the past, and the golden age of 
the world is in the future. 

B. F. Underwood. 

*• Safest to Believe." 

It has often been argned that credulity is safer than 
skepticism — that "it is safest to believe;" inasmuch as if a 
mau believes in heaven and hell, and there be no such places, 
he is, if no gainer, at least no loser; whereas the Infidel may 
lose, and cannot gain. Upon the same principle, it were 
safest to believe all the religions of the world at once — Chris- 
tian, Mohammedan, Jewish, Hindoo, Confucian, and all the 
rest; because it is but insuring the matter by halves to 
trust to one only. If Allah be not the only God and Ma- 
homet be an imposter, there is no harm done and nothing 
lost; and if there be not a paradise in another world, there 
has been a pleasant dream of anticipated joys in this. 
; Let us ask, is the balance of profit and loss fairly 
/struck? Are the chances all in favor of the believer and all 
against the skeptic? Is there nothing to be thrown into 
the opposite scale? Surely much. If religion be a fallacy, 
it is a fallacy pregnant with mischief. It excites the fears 


without foundation; it fosters feelings of separation be- 
tween the believer and the unbeliever; it consumes valuable 
time that can never be recalled, and valuable talents that 
ought to be better employed; it draws money from our 
pockets to support a delusion; it teaches the elect to look 
upon their fellow men as heathen and castaways, living in 
sin here, and doomed to perdition hereafter; it awakens 
harassing doubts, gloomy despondency, and fitful melan- 
choly; it turns our thoughts from the things of the world, 
where alone true knowledge is found ; it speaks of temporal 
miseries and temporal pleasures as less than nothing and 
vanity, and thus fosters indifference to the causes of the 
weal and woe of mankind ; worse than all, it chains us down 
to an antiquated orthodoxy, and forbids the free discussion 
of those very subjects which it most concerns us to in- 
vestigate. If religion be a fallacy, its votaries are slaves. 
Whereupon, then, rests the assertion, that if the believer 
does not gain, he cannot lose? Is it nothing to lose time 
and talents, to waste our labor on that which is not bread, 
and our money upon that which profiteth not? Is it noth- 
ing to feel that the human beings that surround us are 
children of the devil and heirs of hell? Is it nothing to 
think that we may perhaps look across the great gulf and 
see some one we have loved on earth tormented in a fiery 
lake; and hear him ask us to dip a finger in water that it 
may cool his parched tongue? Is it no loss to live in dis- 
quiet by day, and in fear by night; to pass through dark 
seasons of doubt and temptation, and to be conscious that 
we are but as strangers and pilgrims here, toiling through 
a weary valley of cares and sorrows? Is it no loss to hold 
back when truth oversteps the line of orthodoxy, and when 
there ought to be free discussion, to shrink before we know 
not what? Is all this no loss? Or, is it not rather the loss 
of all that a free and rational being most values? 

Those engaged in the trade of religion, imngiuo them- 
selves to have a mighty advantage against Tnridcls upon 
the strength of the old, worn out argument iliat wlietlier 


the Christian religion be true or false there can be no 
harm in believing; and that belief is, at any rate, the 
safer side. Now to say nothing of this old popish argu- 
ment, which a sensible man must see is the very essence of 
popery, and would oblige us to believe all the absurdities 
and nonsense in the world : inasmuch as if there be no harm 
in believing, and there be some harm and danger in not 
believing, the move we believe, the better; and all the ar- 
gument for any religion whatever would be, that it should 
frighten us out of our wits; the more terrible, the more 
true ; and it would be our duty to become the converts of 
that religion, whatever it mighi: be, whose priests could 
swear the loudest, and damn and curse the fiercest. This is 
a wolfish argument in sheep's clothing. (Truth Seeker 

The "Safe Side." 

"Ours is the safe side," says the Christian; "for if Infi- 
delity be true then both Infidel and Christian have the same 
destiny, namely to die and end all, but if Christianity be 
true what will become of the Infidel?" In reply to this we 
say, that although at death both believer and unbeliever 
fall asleep side by side upon the bosom of mother earth, yet 
it does not make yours the safe side ; because if Christianity 
be true then the most of the human race go into eternal tor- 
ment. Orthodoxy has always taught that "many are 
called but few are chosen." Now if nine tenths of the race 
are going to suffer endless pain I do not see how those who 
are going to constitute a large part of that number and are 
to be eternally lost, can call it the "safe side." For it 
should not be forgotten that the vast majority of those 
who are going to suffer the wrath of God, are professed 
Christians. "Many will say unto me in that day. Lord, 
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy 
name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess 
unto them— I never knew you, depart from me ye that work 

iniquity." (Mat. 7: 22,23.) 



No, no, it will not do to trust that side as the "safe 
side'' where " many are called but few are chosen." 

We need something safer than that. 

Again, we do not see how it can be the "safe side," to 
despise this life, in hopes of another that we know nothing 
of. If Infidelity be true, all Christians are superstitious 
idolaters. If Infidelity be true. Christians are deceived and 
are corrupting the minds of millions of children with super- 
stition which will render them bigoted, cruel, and unhappy. 
And this is about the size of it. How, then, can it be the 
safe side. The safe side is always to be fair and honorable. 
It is safe always to examine both sides. It is safe to be on 
the alert for more truth. It is safe to accept the truth even 
when it cuts away old prejudices and old beliefs. It is safe 
not to be a sectarian. It is not safe to be a partizan, but it 
is safe to be free, courageous, and honest in all things. It 
is not safe for you to cling to myths, fables, and supersti- 
tions, and to leave them as a blighting inheritance to your 

Popular Objections to Infidelity Answered, Showing Some Mis- 
takes of Christians. 

1. That we are negative, only. — We deny what we deem 
to be false, we aflSrm what we believe to be true, Christians 
do the same; only much that they affirm, we deny, and much 
that they deny, we affirm. Negation is necessary and 
healthful. No affirmation is possible that does not pre- 
suppose a negation. Negation is but the assailing side of 
affirmation. We deny the fables of mythology; we affirm 
the demonstrable truths of science. 

2. That we have no incentive to good deeds.— If the 
Christian acts as he believes, he does good to escape hell 
and gain heaven— he respects the rigiits of others through 
fear of punishment and hope of reward. Hence it is that 
he cannot understand how the man who rejects his creed 
can be a good man. Wc do right because all the experience 
of the race has shown that what wo call "right" is condu- 
cive to happiness ; because the line of right action is the line 


of least resistance; because we believe in the principle of re- 
ciprocity, and because every act of every individual becomes 
a part of the inheritance of the race, and thus as we are, so 
shall be our children. If we are intemperate, diseased, and 
criminal, our children shall suffer in consequence thereof. 
What higher or stronger incentive to right action can be 
offered ? 

3. That we are unhappy. — Why should we be more un- 
happy than the Christian? Why should we not be more 
linppy? We live in the same world; we believe in making 
the most of its opportunities for obtaining happiness, while 
he (theoretically, at least,) believes that earthly joy depre- 
ciates heavenly bliss ; we are cursed by no fear of an angry 
God, by no dreams of an endless hell and of a revengeful 
devil; the Christian no more than the Infidel, is exempt 
from accident, sickness and death, and the agony of parting 
with loved ones is his no less than ours. He accepts Revela- 
tion and Creation, and hence believes that we belong to a 
falling race ; we accept Science and Evolution, and hence be- 
lieve that we belong to a rising race. Which is the most 
rational and hope inspiring belief? 

4. That it is "safest to believe." — If this proves any- 
thing it proves too much. If our future (if we have one) 
can be rendered more secure by pretending to believe when 
we do not, then the Protestant should accept Catholicisnj . 
and the Catholic, Protestantism, while the members of every 
sect should believe all that is taught by all other sectarists 
and Christians of every school should believe all that is con- 
tained in the sacred books of other religions. 

5. That we hurt the feelings of those who cherish the old 
faith.— Why should the Christian complain that we disturb 
settled convictions and cut loose the anchored bark of faith? 
Has not Christianity ever been a missionary religion? It 
seeks to disturb the religion of the whole world. Christians 
attack all religions other than their own— our offence is 
that we include Christianity in the category of false faiths. 


"All Owing to the Bible.*' 

''It is a very common argument with Christians, that 
only those nations which have had the Bible are refined, civ- 
ilized and learned. The following is the boastful manner 
in which Christians set forth the claims of their religion: 
"Take a map of the world, draw a line around those coun- 
t i-ios that have enjoyed the highest degree of refinement, and 
you will encircle just those nations that have received the 
Dible as their authority in religion." In refutation of this 
assumption Horace Seaver writes: "From this language 
the plain inference is, that those nations have been indebted 
to the influence of the Bible Jor the positions to which they 
liave attained. Let us follow out a little this line of argu- 
ment and see where it will lead. 

"The ancient Egyptians stood as far in advance of their 
contemporaries as do the nations of Christendom at the 
present day, as the remains of their cities and temples fully 
attest. And if the argument is good, they were indebted 
for that superiority to their worship of cats, crocodiles, and 
onions ! 

"The ancient Greek might have exclaimed, as he beheld 
the proud position to which Greece attained—' See what we 
owe to a belief in our glorious mythology ; we have reached 
the highest point of enlightenment the world has ever wit- 
nessed; we stand unequaled in power, wealth, the cultivation 
of the arts, and all that makes a nation refined, polished, 
and great I' 

"How immeasurably would his faith in the elevating 
tendency of iis religion have been increased could he have 
looked with prophetic eye into the distant ages of the fut- 
ure, and beheld the enlightened and Christianized nations 
of the nineteenth century adopting the remains of Grecian 
architecture, sculpture, painting, oratory, music and liter- 
ature as their models! Pagan Rome, too, once mistress of 
the world and arbitress of nations— the home of philoso- 
phers and sages— the land in which the title * I am a Roman 
citizen,' was the proudest that mortal could wear— Rome, 


by the above Christian argument, should have ascribed all 
lier honor, praise, and glory to her mythology. 

"The Turk and the Saracen, likewise, have had their 
day of power and renown. Bagdad was the seat of science 
and learning at a time when the nations of Europe were 
HUiik in darkness and superstition. The Turk and Saracen 
should have pointed to the Koran as the source of their 

"Thus we see that the Christian argument we are no- 
ticing, if it proves anything, it proves too much. If the 
nations of Christendom are indebted to the Bible for their 
enliglitenment, likewise were the Egyptians indebted to 
their cat and crocodile and onion worship, the Greeks and 
llomans to their mythology and the Turks and Saracens to 
their Koran."— Seaver. 

The following is from William Denton's "Common Sense 
Thoughts on the Bible :" 

" ' But it is well known, that in those countries where the 
Bible is read, studied, and believed in, there is more knowl- 
edge and greater freedom, more virtue and happiness, than 
in any other countries.' " 

" If true, and if all this was the result of reading and be- 
lieving the Bible, it would not prove the Bible to be divine. 
A book may be useful, though merely human. But where is 
tlie proof that v/e owe our virtue, liberty, and enlightment 
to the Bible? The Abyssinians have had the Bible in their 
possession twice as long as the Auglo-Saxons, and yet they 
are a race of barbarians still. What did the Bible accom- 
plish for the people of Syria, and Asia Minor, who were first 
blessed with it? So little, that the Koran superseded it; the 
Mohammedans being superior in almost every respect, to 
the Christians whom they conquered and converted. The 
Greeks and Romans were as far in advance of surrounding 
nations as we are or profess to be. Was it the Bible that 
elevated and made them and made their unsurpassed poets, 
painters, sculptors, and orators? Their priests, doubtless, 
attributed their superiority to the superior rehgion they 


possessed. So Bible believers oppose science and reform to 
the last ; but when they triumph in spite of their opposition, 
they are the first to shout glory to the Bible for what it has 
accomplished . ' '—Denton. 

"I had a conversation with a gentleman once— and these 
gentlemen are alwa^^s mistaking something that goes along 
with a thing for the cause of the thing— and he stated to me 
that his particular religion was the cause of all advance- 
ment. I said to him, ' Xo, sir; the causes of all advancement 
in my judgment, are plug hats and suspenders.' And I said 
to him, ' You go to Turkey, where they are semi-barbarians, 
and you won't find a pair of suspenders or a plug hat in all 
that country ; you go to Russia, and you will find now and 
then a pair of suspenders at Moscow or St. Petersburg; but 
you go on down until you strike Austria, and black hats be- 
gin ; then you go to Paris, Berlin, and New York, and you 
will find everybody wears suspenders and everybody wears 
black hats. Wherever you find education and inusic, there 
you will find black hats and suspenders.' He said that any 
man who said to him that plug hats and suspenders had 
done more for mankind than the Bible and religion he would 
not talk to." (IngersoU's "Ghosts.") 


Passages Commending or Enjoining the Use of Wine or 
Strong Drink, or Both, or including a Plentiful sup- 
ply of Wine among the Blessings to be Bestowed 
upon Favored individuals or tribes, etc.; or includ- 
ing the Deprivation of it among the Punishments 
inflicted upon the Disobedient. 

"Jacob, blesaiiig Judab, said: (Gen. 41): 11, 12): 'Biudiug 
his ioal unto to the vine, and his ass's colt nnta • sttoice vine; 
he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of 
grapes. 11 is e^'es shall be red with wine, and his teeth white witJi 


"Doesn't look as though Yah weh, the 'God of Jacob,' thought 
wine a very bad article. 

"Num. 6 : 20 : 'After that the Nazarite may drink wine.' 

"In Deut. 7: 13, God, through Moses, said to his chosen peo- 
ple: 'And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee; and 
he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, 
thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil,' etc., etc. 

"Just think of it, Woman's Christian Temperance Union peo- 
ple, God has solemnly promised to bless his faithful children with 
an especially large vintage, a better vintage than that of their un- 
believing neighbors ! Rather rough on the heretic French and the 
Infidel Germans ! 

"Deut. 11 : 14 : ' That I will give you the rain of your land iii 
his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest 
gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thy oil.' 

"Yah weh is determined that the supply of wine shall not fall 

"Deut. 14 : 26 : 'And thou shalt bestow that money for what- 
soever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or 
for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth ; and thou 
shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, 
thou and thine household.' 

"Rev. Mr. Stevenson to the box! Repeat your testimony, 
please. *I said that. The education of the children of the repub- 
lic in temperance principles logically involves the maintenance in 
those schools of the Bible as the great text book in morals.' 
." "Deut. 15: 14: 'Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy 
flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press of that 
wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give 
unto him.' 

''Thi§is said regarding the manumitted Hebrew slave. And 
so it is a blessing for God to give the fruit of the wine-press to his 
children? And we are to emulate him ? 

"It ' .^ems that God punishes his people by blasting their vine- 
yards, and thus cutting short their supply of ^^^nc, as below: 

"Deut. 28- 89: 'Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, 
but thou 8i 'ithw drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes, 

for the worms shall eat them.' 

"Verse 51 of the same chapter tells the people that their cattle 
and wine and oil shall be taken from them if they disobey God's 
commands. This is the famous ' cursing chapter ' of the Bible, and 


is just the reading calculated to make a man believe that God was 
the first pope of Kome. 

"Deuteronomy is a very good book for the Woman's Cftn's- 
tmn Temperance Union, and I suggest that it hold a special 
meeting to pray for the evidently 'rum '-loving god who wrote 
it. There is much other matter in it that helps to make it an ad- 
mirable work for use in the schools. 

"Judges 9: 13: 'And the vine said unto them, Should I leave 
my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted 
over the trees?' • 

"Ah I so it appears that God, the 'original prohibitionist,' ac- 
cording to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union drinks wine, 
else how could it cheer him ? ' 

"Second Sam. 6 : 19 : 'And he dealt among all the people, oven 
among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as 
men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a 
flagon of wine.' 

"Query: What would the Christian temperance ladies have 
done with that wine had they been present when David, the man 
after God's own heart, dealt it out to all, men as well as women ? 
"Second Sam. 16: 2: 'And Ziba said. The asses bo for the 
king's household to ride on ; and the bread and summer fruit for 
the young men to eat; and the wine that such as faint in the wil- 
derness may drink.' 

"In Kansas and Iowa many got 'faint in the ^^^lderness,' judg- 
ing by the business of the drugstores. No doubt they have all 
seen this prescription given by God. 

"Second Chron. 2: 10: 'And behold, I will give to thy serv- 
ants, the hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand measures of 
beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and 
twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of 

"The article which Solomon, 'the wisest of all men,' gave to 
the servants of tho king of Tyro in one-fourth payment for their 
labor in preparing the temple which he built to the Lord, was 
probably os7)Ooially blessed by tho I^ord for that use, and so ron- 
dered non-intoxioating, else we must concludes that he pays those 
who build houses for him in what friend St. John would call 'liquid 

"And inasmuch as Solomon was tho wisest of all men (or God 
made a mistake when he so said), and the temple was for the said 


(jod, 1 am justified in concluding that this God regards wine as a 
l<'gal tender, and so I put the above passage in this category as 
one in which God has sanctified the use of wine. 

"Neh. 5 : 11 : (To the usurers) : 'Restore, I pray you, to them, 
even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their olive yards, and 
their houses, also the hundreth part of the money, and of the corn, 
the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them.' 

-'Neh. 10: 39: 'For the children of Israel and the children of 
Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the 
oil . . . and we will not forsake the house of our God.' 

" Wine, old or 'new,' seems to have been always acceptable to 
' our God,' whether tendered as a holy offering or otherwise. 

" The Lord' makes wine, according to the Psalmist: 

"Psalm 104: 15: 'And wine that maketh glad the heart of 
man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strength- 
eneth man's heart.' 

'•If 'the Lord' lived in Iowa, Lozier and Foster would have 
him ai'rested for violation of the new iron-clad prohibitory law. 

"Prov. 3: 10: 'So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and 
thy presses shall burst out with new wine.' 

"Prov. 31: 6, 7: 'Give strong drink unto him that is ready 
to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy heart. Let him 
di-ink and forget his poverty and remember his misery no moro.' 

"In these two verses, the author of Proverbs has more tlian 
nullified all the good things he said in his earlier chapters, and 
which I have quoted in List A. I am quite sure that where they 
have prevented the drinking of one glass of wine or strong drink, 
these passages have led to the drinking of one thousand. And this 
is a mild statement of the case. 

"Eccl. 9: 7: 'Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink 
thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.' 

"Song of Sol. 1:2: 'Let him kiss me with the kisses of his 
mouth ; for thy love is better than wine.' 

" From this w^e gather that, next to love wine is the best thing 
in the world. This is the opinion of most bacchanalian experts, 1 
believe. Solomon seems to have had much experience. 

" Song of Sol. 5:1: 'I have drunk my \dne with my milk ; eat, 
O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, beUevers.' 

"Is this the earliest mention of milk punch? 


"Song' of Sol. 8:2: *I would cause thee to driiilc of apiced 
wiue of the juice of my pom(?granate.' Metaphorical, undoubtedly. 

'* Isa. 1 : 22 : ' Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with 

"Have your wine full strength, as much as you would have 
your silver unalloyed, is the admonition of God's prophet. 

"Isa. 24: 7: 'The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth; 
all the merry-hearted do sigh.' 

"One more in the long list of passages wherein it is said that 
God punished his chosen people by cutting off their vintage. 
What God regards as a real deprivation to lose must be good 
to have and to keep, in his opinion, whatever the Woman's Chris- 
tian Temperance Union people may think about it. Verse 9 says : 
'They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bit- 
ter to them that drink it.' A'erse 11 : 'There is a crying for wine 
in the streets; all joy is darkened; the mirth of the land is gone.' 

"God thus punished them by taking away their wine, on the 
same principle that he punishes us by killing our children, as Chris- 
tians say that he does. Will they contend that children are 
inherently an evil? They must if they follow the same line of rea- 
>;oning that they do in interpreting these texts. 

"Isa. 27: 2, 3: 'In that day sing ye unto her, a vineyard of 
red wine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment; 
lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.' 

"Figurative, doubtless! So is the next, but all the influence 
of these passages is on the side of intemperance, necessarily, for 
the simple reason that the great mass of the people will take them 
literally, and for the further reason that the constant association 
of wine with 'good news' and symbols of religion familiarize the 
mind with it and serve to give it something of a sacred character. 
This last mentioned fact helps to explain why the church so long- 
opposed the modern temperance movement. But here is the pas- 
sage above indicated, Isa. 55: 1: 'Ho, everyone that thirsteth, 
come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy 
and eat: yea, come buy wine and milk without money and with- 
out ijrice.' 

"Isa. 62: 8: 'The Lord hath sworn ])y his right liaud, and by 
the arai of his strength. Surely I will no more give thy corn to be 
meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger Bhall not 
drink thy wine, for the which thou hast labored.' 


"Rev. Stevenson should suggest to the Lord that, whcrojis 
wine is an evil thing, and the Bible a 'great text book of morals,' 
and the palladium of temperance, essential in the proper training 
of our children, therefore, he, the Lord, should have clearly shown 
that he meant that the enemies of his chosen people should take 
from them their wine that through such deprivation they should 
be better and happier. But, no ! he ranks wine with corn, and reg- 
isters a mighty oath that the people shall have them both. 

"Isa. 65 : 8: 'Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in 
the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, so 
I will do for my servants' sake, that I may not destroy them 

" Jer. 31 : 12 : 'Therefore they shall come and sing in the hight 
of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the Lord, for 
wheat, and for wine, and for oil,' etc. 

"Jer. 40: 10: 'But ye, gather ye wine, and summer fruits, 
and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in the cities that 
ye have taken.' 

"Probably 'wine' here means grapes, though it is used in the 
same construction as 'oil.' 

"Jer. 48 : 33 : ' And joy and gladness is taken from the plenti- 
ful field, and from the land of Moab, and I have caused wine to 
fail from the wine presses.' 

"Dan. 1 : 5: And the king appointed them a daily provision of 
the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank, so nourishing 
them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before 
-the king.' 

"Here God intends, plainly, to convey the impression that 
wine is nourishing! The only way in which the Christian tem- 
perance people can relieve him from the bnputation of teaching 
lessons so opposite to theirs is to enter the plea that he did not 
inspire the writer ! 

" Hos. 2: 8, 9: ' For she did not know that I gave her corn, and 
wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold which they pre- 
pared for Baal. Therefore I will return and take away my corn in 
the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will re- 
cover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.' 

" Of course, if these passage.^^ and very many of like import, 
are any argument against wine, they are of equal weight in the 
scale against corn, wool, and many other useful and necessary 
arfides. The authors of such verses, wherever found, unquestion- 


ably looked upon wine as one of God's good gifts to his children, 
but which he was compelled to Bometimes deprive them of because 
of their disobedience. 

" Hos. 9:2: 'The floor and the wine-press shall not feed them, 
and the new wine shall fail in her.' 

"That is, Israel shall be punished for her transgressions by 
the destruction of the fertility of the soil. 

"Evidently the perfume of wine was pleasing unto the Lord, 
for he says, in promising his blessing to the repentant people 
(Hos. 14: 7): 'They shall revive as the com, and gTOw as the 
wine; the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.' 

"Joell: 5: 'Awake, ye drunkards, and howl, all ye drinkers 
of wine.' 

"This, taken by itself, would be an unqualified condemnation 
of intoxicants, but such was not the prophet's meaning. The verse 
concludes : * Because of the new wine, for it is cut off from your 

"In the vision of the prophet he sees the great evils that have 
come upon his country; the palmer-worm, and the locust, and the 
canker-worm have destroyed the crops. * The , meat-offering and 
the drink-offering is cut off from the house of the Lord, .... 
the corn is wasted, the oil languisheth,' etc. While in the verse 
quoted the drinkers arc mildly requested to howl, in verse thirteen 
we have, * Gird yourselves and lament, ye priests ; howl ye minis- 
ters of the altar.' No temperance admonition or lesson here, that 
is plain. 

"Joel 3 : 18 : 'And it shall come to pass in that day that the 
mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hills shall flow with 
milk, and all the rivers of .Judah shall flow with water,' etc, 

" Thus, again, among the great blessings to be bestowed upon 
the faithful is wine in abundance. One of the facte that strikes mo 
most forcibly, in making such an exammation as this, is the al- 
most universal favor with which the Hebrew prophets looked upon 
wine and wino-drinking; and in prophesying the ovils to come 
upon thf'ir poople because of their disobedience to God or their 
opprosBion of their fellows, they rarely fail to include thp cutting 
off of tho wine supply. This they evidently regarded as one of the 
groatest of calamities. Our Christian temperance friends would 
gladly, so they say, visit wholesale destruction upon the viueyardfl 
and barloy fields, and they seem almost to seek to convey the 
impression that God made a mistake when he created grapes and 


barley. This proves how honest they are when they say that tho 
Bible is a temperance book. In Amos 5: 11, we have another 
example of the above-mentioned fact in the utterances of tho 
prophet. Denouncing the people for their injustice, he says : * Yo 
have i)lanted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of 
them.' In the preceding sentence he had said: 'Ye have built 
houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dweU in them.' Houses 
were good, wine was good ; but because of their sins they should 
be deprived of both. There is here no argument either direct or 
implied in behalf of abstinence. 

"Amos 9: 14 : ' And I will bring again the captivity of my peo- 
ple of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit 
them; and they shall plant vineyards r.nd drink the wine thereof ; 
they shall also make gardens and eat the fruit of them.' 

"It does not seem that even Mr. Stevenson would venture to 
claim this verse as a Bible alignment for temperance. They shall 
drink the wine 1 

"Micah. 6: 15: *Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; 
thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with 
oil; and sweet wine, but shalt not drink wine.' 

" How c£Ln apparently honorable men claim that God, as re- 
vealed in the Bible, disapproves of the use of intoxicants when he 
is continually telling his chosen people that he will punish them by 
destroying their corn, and their wine, and their oil ; evidently tak- 
ing particular i-^^^is to impress upon them the fact that they 
(wine, corn, and oil) are equally good and useful? 

"Zeph. 1: 13: 'They shall also bmld houses, but not inhabit 
them; and they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the wine 

" The same old story : 

"In chapter 1, verse 11, Haggai calls for a drouth upon the 
land to punish the people, and he includes, as usual, the corn, and 
the oil, and the new wine among the things to be destroyed. 

" Zech. 9 : 17 : * For how great is his goodness, and how great 
is his beauty ; corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new 
wine the maids.' 

"Rather a singular apportionment of his bounty, unless 'com' 
means something stronger than wine. 

"Matt. 11: 19: 'The Son of man came eating and drinking, 
and they say. Behold, a man is gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a 


friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her 
children.' But are these her children who claim Jesus as very God 
and yet fly directly in the face of his precepts and practice? Or is 
it moral uprightness instead of wisdom that they lack? 

"In Mat. 21: 33 to 41, and Mark 12: 1 to 9, Jesus gives us 
the parable of the vineyard and the husbandman, and in it all 
there is no hint that there was anything wrong in the business of 

"The thought that we find expressed in Mat. 11: 19, is given 
again in Luke 7 : 33-4-5, where we read : ' For John the Baptist 
came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say. He hath 
a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, 
Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans 
and sinners ! But Avisdom is justified of all her children.' 

"Whoever uttered these words, man or god; whoever wrote 
them, John or some one else one hundred or more years later, 
there can be no disputing regarding the lesson which is taught. 
It is that each individual is to determine for himself or herself in all 
things pertaining to personal conduct and habits. 'Let every 
man be fully persuaded in his own mind ' is the central idea of the 
various renderings. There is no rebuke, expressed or implied, of 
intemperance; there is nothing that can be tortured into a con- 
demnation of wine-drinking or into an approval of the principle of 
total abstinence, or that of prohibition. Here was his opportu- 
nity to condemn the drinking of ^ine, to speb:V)4or that which is 
now called temperance; but from his lips fell no words of warning; 
to those gathered about him he said nothing in favor of the great 
reform which Christians of to-day, falsely assuming to speak in hia 
name, declare finds its sanction and inspiration, its bulwark and 
tower of defense, in the Bible. 

"It seems that the good Samaritan (Luke 10: 34) had with 
him a supply of wine with which he dressed the wounds of the 

"John 2: 3-11: 'And when they wanted wine, the mother of 
Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, 
Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. 
His mother saith unto the servants. Whatsoever he saith unto 
you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after 
the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three 
firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water-pots with 


wat<?r. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto 
them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. 
And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the 
water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the 
servants which drew the water knew), the governor of the feast 
called the bridegroom, and saith unto him. Every man at the be- 
ginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, 
then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until 
now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and 
manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.' 

"John 4: 46: *So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, 
where he made the water wine.' 

" The first miracle which Jesus performed was to convert six 
pots of water into wine ! And this feat convinced his disciples of 
his supernatural origin and powers ! And he did this to manifest 
forth his glory ! Either this is true or the Bible is false. Whether 
true or not, it has been a most powerful argument against absti- 
nence; it has resulted directly in making drunkards, as it has 
indirectly in making hypocrites and Jesuitical sophists. I of 
course mean by this last sentence that the seeming necessity 
to prove the Bible a temxjerance work has made any number of 
Christian apologists resort to all kinds of specious arguments and 
make any number of false claims in order to make good their 
assertions. The assumption that this wine was not of an intoxi- 
cating nature is purely gratuitous. There is not even the ghost of 
a fact to be found in support of it. Hundreds of passages, which 
T have quoted under their appropriate heads, prove beyond a 
doubt that the wine so often mentioned in the Bible was intoxi- 
cating; the words of the governor prove that this miraculously 
produced portion of it certainly was of the very best, for it is 
against all reason to suppose that men accustomed to the taste 
and effects of wine would pronounce simple gTape-juice to be better 
than all that had already been served to them at the feast; and, 
finally, the declaration that this act of Jesus was a miracle and 
that it made his disciples to 'believe on him,' gives the last stroke 
to the already nearly dead 'non-intoxicating' theory. 

"Col. 2: 16: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in 
drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the 
Sabbath days.' 

"In other words, judge for yourselves in all these matters. 


eubmit to no dictation from without. How does that Btrike you, 
Messrs. Bible Prohibitionists? 

"1 Tim. 5: 23: 'Drink no longer water, but use a little 
"^-ino for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.' 

"It is probable that this short verse has led to the consump- 
tion of more wine and caused more intemperance than any other 
oqual number of words in any language or contained in any book. 
It has had more potent effect upon the mind of the Christian be- 
liever than have twenty passages which have in a hesitating, 
half-hearted, uncertain way caution against the use of much wine. 

"Comparing this class of passages with those grouped under 
*A,' we find that the Bible pleas for temperance are out voted 
more than five to one by those in favor of the use of intoxicants. 
Tho record is an astonishingly bad one for the Bible as a total 
abstinence and Prohibition work, and should put to the blush all 
of its worshipers and apologists who have been so foolish or un- 
scrupulous as to claim that it is indispensable to the temperance 
cause and in the education of our children. Both claims are 
absurd." (E. C. Walker's "Bible Temperance.'') 

The Inconsistency of Agnosticism. 

"It seems to me as irrational to say there is no God as to say 
there is a God."— Editor Twentieth Century. 

"But pray, why? Does not that proposition tacitly 
concede that it is irrational to say therein* a God? If so, 
how can it be irrational to deny an irrational proposition 
\ or absurdity? Are not the two propositions antithetical? 
If so, one or the other is, of necessity, false. Conceding 
then, as he does, the absurdity of the God idea, why will 
Mr. Pent-ccost persist, inconsistently, in maintaining that 
there is no difference between the rationality of Theism and 
Materialism, with its incidental Atheism? 

"Will lie kindly tell us the difference in degree of ration- 
ality l)etween the position that there is a personal Devil 
and that Wwvq is a God ? Are not both notions of the same 
origin and equally absurd? Are not both transmitted to 
us from the dark ages, from the same book, and must not 
both stand or fall together? Yet Mr. Pentecost would not, 


from pui-e deference and respect for our poor, non-evolved 
pious friends, assume an Agnostic's attitude and concede 
that ' it is as irrational to say there is no Devil as to say 
there is a Devil.' Of course not. He simply denies the exist- 
ence of His Satanic Majesty without equivocation, and the 
proof of his existence not being forthcoming his denial is 
equivalent to proof that such a being does not exist. 

"In law and equity the affirmative is obHged to prove 
its case. If then a proposition is self-evidently absurd, un- 
natural and absolutely impossible, why concede to those 
affirming, without a shadow of proof, that their belief is 
equally rational with our unbehef, that 'it maybe so,' 'I 
don't know,' etc. 

" Having discarded as autlioritative ancient traditions, 
there is absolutely no logic, no i-eason, no science, no anal- 
ogy that will sustain or demonstrate the existence of a God. 
And in view of this fact a simple denial is all-sufficient to 
prove the negative. As the plea of the prisoner at the bar 
of 'not guilty" is equivalent to proof of his innocence and 
bound to be respected by court and juror, unless, indeed, 
the affirmative, beyond a shadow of a doubt, estabUshes 
his guilt, so the Atheist's fearless denial, nowadays, must 
demand profound respect, and is equivalent to proof, un- 
less, indeed, the Church brings proof, outside of a discarded 
Bible, of the trutli of its basic idea. 

''Now, though unnecessary to prove a negative, and 
the God-idea not having been established by history, rev- 
elation, science, or reason, yet alleged arguments being 
continually advanced in the vain endeavor to resuscitate 
a vanishing rehgion, a few propositions are here advanced 
which prove there is no God . 

" There is a universe. This proves there is no God. 

"The universe is infinite. This excludes anything else of 
like character— two infinities being an absurdity. 

"The universe (nature) is here and there and every- 
where. This proves that God cannot be here and there and 



*'Two bodies cannot occupy tbe same space at the same 
time. Matter (implying energy and force) monopolizing 
every point of space, nothing else can occupy it in addition. 

"The universe exists now. Something cannot come 
from nothing, therefore the universe has always existed. 

" Being eternal and infinite, this excludes anything ante- 
rior, exterior, or superior to it. 

" Is God in the universe or the universe in God ? If there 
is a God, either of these propositions must be true, yet both 
are glaringly absurd. 

"Can an engineer drive a locomotive and be a locomo- 
tive at the same time? If not, how can a God manipulate 
an infinite universe and be infinite ' Himself?' 

"Yet the universe, outside of a God, is an absolute real- 
ity, as much so as a locomotive is a reality outside of the 
engineer. The world is a reality, our planets, the sun, all 
the countless millions of stars within reach of our telescopes 
and the infinitude of stars and systems beyond the reach of 
our strongest lenses, which science infers to exist, all these 
are a reality and all these, yes, every object of knowledge is \ 
a reality, and all these are not God! How then, in the 
name of reason I ask, can a God, of whom we know ab- 
solutely nothing, be infinite, when an infinite number of 
material objects— not God— fill all space? 

" But does the universe exist in God? If we but imagine 
for a moment the aspect of the universe to resemble a huge 
machine of infinite proportions, eternally active in all its 
vast proportions, the idea of the universe existing withiji a 
God will appear equally childish and simple. 

"All phenomena are the results of energy co-existent 
and inseparable from matter. All cosmic motion, change, 
and life may be traced to this physical and chemical cmergy 
pervading all nature— 7jeF6T to a God. 

"Mind— the so-called infinite as well as finite— implies 
limit, locahzation, conditions, ete. This fact tendH to prove 
that while God, perchance, might concentrate his mind on 
the world or some particular sect ur iiidividuiil, considering 


their exhortations, the rest of the world and the universe 
for the time beinir "would be Godless ! 

"From a late scientific authority I quote in proof: "It 
is impossible for a person's mind to be in two places at 
the same time.' Noted chess players may play twenty 
games simultaneously, but it is done by speedy transfer 
of thoughts from one game to another and not by consid- 
ering two moves at once. 

"Thus ' Omniscience' is impossible. 

"Again; mind implies limit and necessitates organism, 
brain, nervous force, etc. This again makes impossible a 
God. Let the Church demonstrate how n God vAthont a. 
brain can he a God and all it implies, or how a God with a 
brain can be infinite, and I will kneel down and worship 
with them. 

"Is this dogmatism? The 'dogmatism of the Infidel' 
we hear so much about? If it is, then asserting that twice 
two is four is doirmatism. Then we state all the facts of 
mathematics, all the truths of history is dogmatism. We 
simply confine ourselves to fact, to knowledge and demon- 
strated truth. There we stop and refuse to accept the crude 
notions transmitted from our ignorant ancestors, which, it 
is dogmatically asserted, are true in spite of our knowledge 
and reason. 

. "I protest against being accused of dogmatism, I 
studiously endeavor to be fair and make no pretensions 
to scholarship and learning. But I emphaticallj' protest 
against the dogmatism of others who, assuming a superior 
air of knowledge assert notions contrary to fact. Suppos- 
ing some one should affirm that twice two is five, would it 
be dogmatism, to deny the proposition, and would thinking 
minds be justified to assume the attitude of Agnostics and 
concede that while in their opinion twice two is four, yet 
twice two may be five, ' I don't know,' ' one proposition is 
as irrational as the other,' etc.? 

"We know a universe exists. Existing now proves it 


is eternal. This simple fact absolutely makes impossible, 
yes, needless, a God. 

*'I simply assert that twice two is four and cannot pos- 
sibly be five. That the universe filling all space nothing else 
can fill it in addition. If this be dogmatism all knowledge 
is a farce."— "Wettstein. 

God Besponsible for the Ills IMan Suffers. 

" If God fore knew whatever was to come to pass, he 
must have been perfectly well aware that his whole crea- 
tion, including the scheme of redemption, would be the most 
stupendous failure imaginable,— as it certainly has been if 
the Christian religion be true. For what rational or hu- 
mane man would raise a family of children, if he knew 
beforehand that they would all be vagabonds and crimi- 
nals, ending their days in prison or on the scaffold? What 
prudent farmer would intentionally sow wheat on land cer- 
tain to produce a bad crop? What sensible business man 
would knowingly embark in an enterprise sure to prove 
disastrous, and to involve himself and his family in irre- 
trievable ruin? And yet such conduct on the part of men 
would be far less irrational and criminal than that of which 
the Creator is guilty, if the doctrine of his foreknowledge 
and omnipotence be true. For, according to this doctrine, 
he alone is responsible for whatever has occurred and will 
occur, and for all the suffering in the world, since he had 
full power to prevent it but did not, and docs not; and the 
conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that ho intended 
all things to be just as they have been in the past, are now 
and are to be in the future. For, if he possessed absolute 
power, he might have placed man under entirely different 
circumstances, and surrounded him by influences which 
would have led him into the path of perfect rectitude, but 
did not choose to do so; and we fail to understand how 
man can be justly held responsible either for his own crea- 
tion, for the nature with which he is endowed, or for the 
environment which determines his conduct." (J. W. Still- 
man's " God and the Uni verse.") 


The Idea of God Must Go. 

" I think it is not a good thing for people to beheve in 
God. I think it is a bad thing for them to do so. I think 
the belief in God is one of the things that is helping very 
strongly to keep knaves in power and honest people in 
weakness ; it is one of the things that is preventing the peo- 
ple from thinking for themselves and helping themselves. 
The human mind will never be perfectly free, and peasants 
and mechanics and day laborers will never be perfectly fairly 
treated in this world, until the church is utterly destroyed. 
1 do not want to see the church reformed. I want to see her 
utterly destroyed, because as long as she exists the ruling 
classes in society will always have in her a faithful ally to 
help them carry on their infernal schemes of pillage. I do 
not want people to have a better idea of God or an idea of 
a better God. I want the idea of God entirely rooted out 
of the mind, because I know that as long as any idea of God 
remains in the mind, the priest and the politician will have 
something to work upon, and this world will never be free 
and happy until the priest and the politician are gone. 

" One man will tell you that God is a Roman Catholic, 
another that he is a Presbyterian, another that he is a 
Baptist, and so on. One man will say that he is a Republi- 
can, another .that he is a single taxer, another that he is a 
Socialist, and so on. What we must come to see is, that 
nothing is done in human society that is not done by men. 
Poverty must be destroyed, not because it is God's will that 
it should be, but because it is best for the human race that 
it should be. And general wealth must be achieved, not be- 
cause it is God's will that it should be, but because it is best 
for the human race that it should be. Beware of those men 
who tell you what is or what is not the will of God. In every 
case you will find a person who is intellectually asleep, or 
half asleep, or mentally dishonest, or else you will find— and 
this is more hkely— a priest or a politician, a person who 
warns to get you to not think about what he is teaching 
you. We have been dragged through enough mire and 


blood and darkness doing things according to the will of 
God. It is now time we began to think things out for our- 
selves . "—Pen teco st . 

" Mr. Barnnm said that Christians had a different way 
of thinking about God now from that of fifty years ago. 
'When I first heard of the doctrine of the Universalists,' 
said he, 'I felt so utterly astonished that I thought I'd drop 
dead in my boots. The orthodox faith painted God as so 
revengeful a being that you could hardly distinguish the 
difference between God and the Devil. If I had almighty 
power and could take a pebble and give it life, knowing be- 
forehand that fifty-nine seconds out of every sixty would be 
extreme misery, I would be a monster. Yet this is how God 
was described, and people talk about loving such a being.' '* 

(Newspaper clipping.) 


1. Something (substance) must have always been, or 
anything could not now be. 

2. Then this something was eternal, and hence self- 

3. Since self-existent and eternal, it must have been 
infinite, and hence was everything existing everywhere. 

4. Therefore, all that is, has always been; that \^, every- 
thing has eternally existed everywhere. 

But will you say that this something, this self-existent, 
eternal everything, is God? Very well. Then nothing but 
God could be. Then he must be the all of everything exist- 
ing everywhere. Then where is your universe? You see 
you cannot have a universe if you have a God. We have 
the universe; hence you cannot have a God. "But he cre- 
ated the universe," you say. Very well; from what did ho 
create it? Nothingl Omnipresent God alone extending on, 
and on, and forever on through all tho overywheres, cram- 
ming all the immensities full of his essential self, llo could 
not liave created th(; univei-so Ijoyond himself, since there 
was no l)eyon(J. Tljere could have been no place in which to 


put it outside of hirnself when created, since there was no 
outside. If created, it must have been from his own 
essence; and then it would not have been a creation of any- 
thing, but a changing of himself into something different; 
and that was not possible, since he was self-existent, and 
must necessarily exist the same forever, since he was eter- 
nal, and must exist unchangeable. So the universe could 
not have been made from nothing, since all the spaces 
everywhere were crammed completely full of everything, 
and hence there was no unoccupied premises where the raw 
material could have been stored away. It could not have 
been created irom God-substance, since that already was; it 
could not have been formed from God's pre-existing self, 
since that would have been to change the eternally un- 
changeable into something else — to annihilate himself as 
God by working himself over into the universe. You see 
that there can be but one Eternal All. You cannot have 
both— a God and the universe. And since we have the uni- 
verse, that is, everything eternally existing everywhere, we 
need no God, there is no room for a God, and there has 
never been anything for a God to do. Tlierefore, there is no 

As an infinite God must necessarily^ fill the entirety of 
space, there could be no room for aught else. God and mmi 
could not live together in the same universe. God would 
necessarily be everything; then the universe must be notJ}- 
ing. But we have the universe, and that is everything; 
therefore God is Z2ot22ii?o'— existing nowhere. A mote that 
is, is better than a God that is not. If we part with God 
and obtain a universe, we make a magnificent exchange. 
The issue has always been God versus matter. When people 
come to understand that matter has always been, that it 
eternally had the start of everything else, and hence needed 
no creation, it will be seen that there never has been any 
necessity for a God, and as the universe is ever governed by 
law, there is nothing for a God to do. Men must believe in 
matter, because it is everything, and does everything. Some- 



thing is always better than nothing. If God is not matter 
he is not anything; and the idea of God is destined to be- 
come obsolete, and gradually pass into utter forgetfulness. 
The God-idea has been the center and foundation of all the 
superstitions of the world. When men have learned to dis- 
pense with it, their emancipation will be great indeed."— 

Sam Preston. 

Jehovah a Failure. 

1. He was unsuccessful in creation. He made Adam and 
Eve and the serpent ; but all his plans were frustrated in a 
short time; and '*it repented the Lord that he had made 

2. In repeopling the world from Noah's family he decid- 
edly failed again. How easy it would have been after 
drowning the whole world, to create a new liian and 
woman of perfect character, and omit the Devil business. 

3. In attempting to save the world through Jesus 
Christ he made another failure. It is not in the nature of 
things for this world to be saved. ''To be saved" means 
too much, and it means too little. Man can not be saved 
entirely from his weakness, ignorance, and selinshness ; and 
hence can never be perfect. Man can be made morally bet- 
ter, intellectually wiser, physically healthier, individually 
and socially happier; but his betterment cannot be achieved 
through preaching, Bible-reading, praying and other relig- 
ious exercises. It must come through liberty. He must 
have equal rights with his fellow men. He must have jus- 
tice established between man and man. The toiler must get 
the fruits of his toil. A good home has a more sacred influ- 
ence over the hearts of men to make them kind and good, 
than all the preaching in the world. With a home of his 
own man has a little heaven of his own, and a truer and 
Ijetter love of his neighbor. 

"The character of a god is the character of the people 
who have made him. When therefore I expose the crimes of 
Jehovah, I expose the defective morality of Israel ; and when 
I criticise the God of modern Europe, 1 criticise the defective 



intellects of Europeans. The reader must endeavor to bear 
this in mind; for though he may think that his idea of the 
Creator is actually the Creator, that belief is not shared by 
me." (Winwood Reade, "Martyrdom of Man.") 


Atonement for Sin, an Immoral Doctrine. 

1. The doctrine of the atonement is of heathen origin, 
and is predicated upon the assumption that no sin can be 
fully expiated without the shedding of blood. In the Ian- ^3^ 
guage of Paul, " Without the shedding of blood there can 

be no remission oi ski." A barbarous and bloody doctrine 
truly ! But this doctrine was almost universally prevalent 
amongst the orientals long before Paul's time. 

2. Christians predicate the dogma of atonement for sin 
upon the assumption that Christ's death and sufferings were 
a substitute for Adam's death, incurred by the fall. But as 
Adam's sentence was death, and he suffered that penalty, 
this assumption cannot be true. 

3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Gene- 
sis 3, and Christ suffered that penalty for man, then man 
should not die; but, as he does, it makes the doctrine pre- 
posterous. It could not have meant spiritual death, as 
some argue, because a part of the penalty was that of being 
doomed to return to dust (Gen. 3: 19). 

4. If crucifixion was indispensably necessary as a pen- 
alty, then the punishment should have been inflicted either 
upon the instigator or perpetrator of the deed ; either the 
serpent or Adam should have been nailed to the cross. 

5. We are told in reply, that as an infinite sin was com- 
mitted, it required an infinite sacrifice. But Adam, being a 
finite being, could not commit an infinite sin; and Christ's 
sacrifice and sufferings could not be infinite unless he had 
continued to suffer to all eternity Therefore the assump- 
tion is false, 


6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a 
condition as to require the murder of his only son from any 
consideration whatever. 

7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love 
for his son, could have required him to be, or consented to 
have him put to death in a cruel manner; for the claims of 
mercy and paternal affection are as imperative as justice. 

8. To put an intelligent and innocent being to death, 
for any purpose is a violation of the moral law, and as 
great a sin as that for whicb he died. Hecatombs of victims 
cannot atone for the infraction of the moral law which is en- 
graven upon our souls. 

9. If it were necessary for Christ to be put to death, then 
Judas is entitled to one half the merit of it for inaugurating 
the act, as it could not have taken place without his aid ; 
and no one who took part in it should be censured, but 

10. It is evident, that, if everybody had been Quakers 
no atonement would have been made, as their religion is op- 
posed to bloodshed. 

11. The atonement is either one God putting another 
to death or God putting himself to death to appease his 
own wrath; but both assumptions are monstrous fibsurdi- 
ties, which no person distinguished for science or reason can 

12. Anger and murder are the two principal features in 
the doctrine of the atonement; and both are repugnant to 
our moral sense and feelings of refinement, and indicate a 
barbarous and heathen origin. 

13. The atonement punishes the innocent for the guilty, 
which is a twofold crime, and a reversal of the spirit of jus- 
tice. If a father should catch four of his children stealing 
and the fifth one standing by and remonstrating against 
the act, and should seize on the innocent one and administer 
a severe fiagdlation, he would commit a double crime: Ist. 
that of punishing an innocent child; 2d, that of exonera- 


ting and encouraging the four children in the commission of 
crime. The atonement involves the same principle. 

14. No person with true moral manhood would consent 
to be be saved on any such terms; but would prefer to suf- 
fer for his own sins, rather than let an innocent being suffer 
for them. And the man who would accept salvation upon 
such terms must be a sneak and a coward, with a soul not 
worth saving. 

15. Who that possesses any sense of justice would want 
to swim through blood to get to the heavenly mansion. I 
want neither animals, men, nor Gods murdered to save my 

16. If there is any virtue in the atonement in the way of 
expiating crime, then there is now another atonement de- 
manded by the principles of moral justice to cancel the sin 
committed by the first atonement— that of murdering an in- 
nocent being, "in whose mouth was no guile;" and then 
another atonement to wipe out the sin of this atonement, 
and so on. And thus it would be atonement after atone- 
ment, murder after murder, ad mfnitvin. What shocking 
consequences and absurdities are involved in this ancient 
heathen superstition ! 

17. It seems strange that any person can cherish the 
thought for a moment that the Infinite Father would re- 
qure a sacrificial offering for the trifling act of eating a 
little fruit, and require no atonement for the infinitely 
greater sin of murdering "his only begotten son." An- 
other monstrous absurdity! 

18. The advocates of the atonement tell us that man 
stands toward his Creator in the relation of a debtor, and 
the atonement cancels the debt. To be sure I How does it 
do it?— Graves. 


"A Protestant minister of Oakland, California, in are- 
cent address on the public school system of the United 


States, expressed himself as follows : ' In one of the schools 
of San Francisco Herbert Spencer's 'Date of Ethics' was 
introduced as a text book of morals— as palpable a viola- 
tion of the law forbidding sectarian instruction as the 
introduction of the Catholic or Methodist catechism; for 
Hebert Spencer belongs to a very small and narrow sect 
which promulgates the creed of Agnosticism.' 

"If the reverend speaker had taken the ground that the 
' Data of Ethics ' was too abstruse to be placed in the hands 
of public school pupils we should have felt inclined to sustain 
his objection. But when he says that to introduce such a 
book is to give a sectarian character to the school in which 
it is used, we must enter a protest. Science is never sec- 
tarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching 
begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can- 
not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic 
lines that fence round some particular creed. The followers 
of Mr. Spencer may be in a minority, but they are no more 
a sect than were the adherents of the Copernican system of 
astronomv, or than are the believers in the Darwinian the- 
ory of natural selection. Mr. Spencer makes no appeal to 
faith, but finds his premises in the common experience of 
mankind. A pupil who was being taught out of the 'Data 
of Ethics' would be quite at liberty to dispute either the 
premises or the arguments of the author; and he would not 
be silenced by the declaration that Mr. Spencer is infallible. 
But when catechisms are taught they are taught, not as con- 
taining matter for discussion, but as containing doctrines 
that must not be disputed, on pain of more or less disagree- 
able consequences. Similarly when the Bible is read in 
school it is read not as a fallible record of events, or a 
fallible guide in morals, but as something absolutely au- 
thoritative — the very voice of Gcd. It is perfectly obvious 
then, where sectarianism in education begins; it begins just 
at the point where doctrines of any kind accepted on faith 
by a portion of the community and not discussible on 
grounds of reason, are made a part of public school iustruc- 


tion. Sectarianism comes in whenever the teacher ia obliged 
to say, ' Hush ' to the inquiring scholar who wants his rea- 
son satisfied before he will believe. There is no sectarianism, 
on the other hand, in making use of a book which lays no 
claim to any kind of privilege, and which, therefore, cannot 
force the belief of anyone. The followers of Mr. Spencer do 
not form a sect because they have no beliefs which they wish 
to exempt from criticism or discussion, and because they hold 
themselves at full liberty to pass beyond the bounds of Mr. 
Spencer's thought whenever they can see their way to doing 
so. Mr. Spencer's 'Data of Ethics' may not contain all the 
truth on the subject of morals, but the truth whi(;h it does 
contain lends itself to demonstration; and no one can be 
the worse for being taught demonstrable truths. Upon 
that foundation he can afterward build what he likes— hay, 
stubble, or what not; and after his superstructure lias been 
tried by the fire of experience, as it is very likely to be, he 
will still have something solid left on which to rebuild in 
perchance wiser fashion. We do not advocate the introduc- 
tion of the ' Data of Ethics ' into the public schools : but we 
are convinced that it would be a very good thing for the 
rising generation if some of the ideas contained in that 
book could be brought home to their minds. (Popular 
Science Monthly, Novembw 1889.) 


JT CURSE prououncpd iii)on the 

earth, 24:. 
Adam gives names to every liv- 
ing creature, 20. 
Agnosticism, 368. 
AU owing to the Bible, 356. 
Atheism, 374. 
Atonement, 302, 377. 
A minority not a sect, 379. 
Blue Laws of Connecticut, 328. 
Bruno, 331. 

Bible, sanctions crime, 291. 
intemperance, 358. 
Dolvgamv, 292. 
slavery, 300. 
the subjection of woman, 

wars of extermination, 

not an inspired revelation, 

opposed to liberty, 337. 

ClJEATlON, 5. 

completed in six days of 
twenty-four hours each, 
Christianity without historical 
basis, 119. 

teaches immorality, 302. 
compared with Material- 
ism, 349. 
Civilization, 281. 

Devil, God creates him, 201. 

serpent knoAvs more about 
the nature of man than 
God does, 202-3. 
serpent tells the truth, 203. 
the book of Job speaks of 
the serpent as Satan ; it 
caricatures him, 206. 
Design argument, 239. 
Divorce, 294. 
Eve made out of a rib, 21. 
Eusebius the father of church 

history, 131. 
a noted liar, 131. 
First Cause, 253. 

infinite and absolute, 27. 
God cannot use reason, 28. 

is responsible for the ills 
man suffers, 372. 
God's ways not our ways, 141. 
Galileo, 330. 
Heaven, 69. 

Hell, hades, gehenna, sheol, 313. 
Immortality, 229. 
In(iuisitiou, 336. 
In the beginning, 5. 
Jehovah a failure, 376. 
Jesus Christ, when was he born ? 

Christianity rests upon Jo- 
seph's dream, 76. 
the golden rule, 77. 



Jesus an Essone, 79. 

liis teaching not up to the 
moral standard of to- 
day, 81. 

he exhibits an imperfect 
sense of justice, 83. 

he teaches the dutj" of sub- 
mission to wrong, 86. 

immoral teachings, 87. 

bitter and unreasonable, 

a false prophet, 89. 

curses the fig tree, 90. 

history silent concerning 
Jesus, 91. 

not a historical cliaracter, 
Labor not a curse, 20. 
Light separated from darkness, 

Man created in God's image, 17. 

^ilat. sialism, 232. 
Matter uncroatable, 0. 
Miracles, 36, 68. 
Other worldliness, 312. 
Pentateuch, 140. 
Pictures of hell, 314. 

Polygamy, 292. 

Prayer, 304, 311. 

Prophecy, 31. 

Protestant persecutions, 321. 

Providence, 247. 

Puritans persecute, 321. 

Safest to believe, 351. 

Secularism, 339. 

Self-contradictions of the Bible, 

Soul questions, 216, 237. 
Spurious writings of the early 

church, 129. 
Sunday question, 255. 
The church opposed to progress, 

The idea of God must go, 373. 
The Lord comes down from 

heaven, 24. 
The New Testament teaches in 

tolerance, 335. 
The Reformation, 302. 
The serpent tempts Eve, 22. 
Two cosmogonies, 29. 
Vast age of the universe, 30. 
Woman, subjection of, 294. 



Truth Seeker 

Pul^li^Hocl ^Monthly at JiS5:3 p<5ir yoair. 

Issues of 1891-3. 


1 Truth Seeker Annual, 1891 $0 2:> 

2 Men, Women, and Gods. Helen H. Gardener ri(< 

3 The Age of lleason. Thomas P»ine. Illustrated '^y 

4 Answers to Christian Questions. D. M. Bennett iJ^i 

5 Christian Absurdities. John Peck JJO 

6 Victor Hugo's Oration on Voltaire lo 

7 The Crisis. Thomas Paine. Illustrated U) 

8 Sabbath Breaking s. 

9 Travels in Faith from Tradition to Reason. Capt. R. C. Adams.. 2. 

10 TheStrikeof aSex. George N. Miller H'^ 

11 My lleligious Experience. S. P. Putnam 2."' 

12 The Higher Criticism in Theology and Religion. T. E. Longshore, "d 

13 Infidel Death-beds. G. W. Foote 2:. 

14 Rights of Man. Thomas Paine. Illustrated 40 

15 Was Christ Criicified? Austin Bierbower lo 

16 Pulpit, Pew, and Cradle. Helen H. Gardener J ' ' 

17 Bible Morals. John E. Remsburg -> 

18 Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk '-i' 

19 Pocket nieology. Voltaire •-> 

30 Pushed by Unseen Hands. H. H. Gardener rM) 

21 History of Religion. E. E. Evans 2() 

'« Mosee or Darwin. F. W. Dodel Wt 

;ij ''he Candle from Under the Bushel . Wm. Hart 40 

24 I'liL -> ClaimH. John E. Remsburg It' 

During the year 1898 other standard and timely Frctttliouglit works 
will be issued. 

Yearly suljscrlbers will receive all the volumes publishp<i during tht 
year. Single copies sold at prices quoted. 


28 Lafayette Pla^e, New iuik. 


hi ^